Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical dissertation concerning the words daímon and daimónion : occasion'd by two late enquiries into the meaning of demoniacks in the New Testament"

See other formats 


I 


3 

! 


: 


- 


■ 


■ 


-  - 
- 


- 


: 


- 


£ 


FEB  2 

•  » 


SCC  #10,868 

Swinton,  John,  1703-1777 

A  critical  dissertation 

concerning  th*  words 


■*o 


a'critical 


D  I  S  S  E  RTATI  ON 


Concerning  the  Words 


AAi'MON  and  AAIMO'NION 


Occafion'd  by 

Two  late  Enquiries  info  the  Meaning  of  De- 
moniacks  in  the  New  Teftament. 


In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend. 


By  a  Gentleman   of  Wadham  College 

Oxford. 


~\ 


LONDON: 

Printed    for    J.    Crokatt;      and    Sold    by 
J.  Roberts  in  Warwick  Lane. 

MDCC  XXXVIII. 

( 'Price  Six-Pence.) 


The  following  Errata,  occafioned  by  the  Author's 
Diftance  from  the  Prefs,  the  Reader  is  defired  to 
excufe,   and  correct  thus : 

Page  i .  Line  1 1 .  for  O  ©EOS  To  GElON  read  O  0EO£, 
TO  0F.ION;  p.  I.  1.  19.  for  aliqui  rofc/aliiq;  p.  3.  1.  14. 
put  £  Comma  after  Tj^jj  p.  7.  line  30.  for  Plutarch,  read 
Plutarch,  p.  7.  1.  32.  for  Dr.  read  D,  p.  14.  1.  16.  put  a 
fmall  Line  after  @iv  ;  thus,  /3jk—  p.  19.  1.  24.  put  a  Com- 
ma after  Signification,  p.  19.  1.  ult.  for  Jlginar.  read  JJinar. 
p.  24.  1.  26.  for  Miracles  read  Miracle  p.  25.  1.  10.  put  a 
Point  of  Interrogation  after  the  Word  called,  thus,  called  ?  p.  25. 
I.  17.  put  a  Point  of  Interrogation  after  Sabbath  Day  ? 


A 

CRITICAL  DISSERTATION 

Concerning  the  Words 

AAI'MHN  and  AAIMO'NION. 


S  I  Ry 

TH  E  Word  AcctfAcov  is  ufed  in  various 
Significations  by  the  Greek  Authors 
who  preceded  the  Birth  of  Christ, 
the  principal  of  which  feem  to  be  the  three 
following. 

I.  Fzrft,  It  is  taken  for  the  Supreme  Beings 
the  Divinity  it/elf]  O  0EOZ  TO  0EION ;  this 
is  evident  from  a  Homer,  Plato,  Arijlotle,  and 
others.  Hence  it  comes  to  pafs,  that  the  b  E- 
pithet  AocifAcvi^  frequently    fignifies,    among 


a  Horn.  Iliad.  P.  98,  99,  Sec.  O.  403,  404,  &c.  Odyf.  B, 
134,  135, ■  &c.  Plat.Polit.  p.  272.  &  alibi  paffim.  Arijiot, 
de  Mund.  fub  init.   Eurip.  Demojih.  pro  Cor.  &c. 

b  Arijlot.  ibid.  Pind.  Pytb.  Od.  2.  Horn,  paffim,  aliqui 
multi. 

B  the 


(4) 

] )  •  :  iher  be  fore  or  after  Death .  Plutarch, 

lamblichns,  Hierocles,  and  others,  are  very  ex- 
prejs  in  this  Particular  ;  but,  as  I  prppofe  men- 
tioning only  foine  of  the  moft  antient  Greek 
Authors  at  prefent,  I  fhall  here  omit  them. 

II.  Tis  obfervable,  that  tho'  Hefiod  honours 
the  Men  of  the  golden  Age  with  the  Title  of 
Demons  after  their  Deaths,  yet  he  does  this 
chiefly  by  way  of  Compliment  to  them,  and 
in  order  to  f)  incite  his  Brother  Perfes  to  imitate 
them  by  performing  juft  and  virtuous  Actions ; 
and  therefore  no  certain  Conclufion  can  be 
drawn  from  hence  with  regard  to  his  real  Opi- 
nion of  the  Nature  of  Demons.  But  whatever 
his  Opinion  of  thefe  Beings  might  be,  what- 
ever he  might  think  of  them,  'tis  certain  p  he 
makes  a  Dilfindiion  betwixt  the  Qsg)  f^cc}ax^g 
Teat  elbdiact,  the  blejjed  and  immortal  Gods,  who 
are  *  Homers  Demons,  and  the  departed  Wor- 
thies of  the  golden  Age,  who  are  his  Demons. 
He  makes  them  different  and  diftindt  Claries  of 
Beings  ;  and  confequently  it  cannot  be  inferred 
from  him,  and  much  lefs  from  his  Followers, 
that  all  Demons,  or  even  the  Beings  to  whom 
Word  was  firft  applied,  were  Ghofts,  or 
departed  Men. 
.  ,er,  that  Demons  in  general  mould  be 
Spirits  of  Men,  who  once  lived  on  Earth, 
is  nnr  at  all  implied  in  the  Word  rtfelf,  nor  does 


'    ibid.  I    Hljkd.  ibid. 

\      }  222, 


this 


(5  ) 

this  Notion  enter  into  the  Idea  which  it  con- 
veys to  us.  —  This  Idea  exhibits  to  our  View 
Beings  endued  with  Knowledge  only,  without 
relation  to  any  other  Quality,  Circumftance,  or 
Perfection ;  and  therefore  rational  Beings  in  this 
View  only  are  fignined  by  this  Word,  i.  e.  Be- 
ings endued  with  a  Degree  of  Knowledge  fu- 
perior  to  what  we  enjoy,  and  who  therefore 
by  way  of  Eminence,  with  refpect  to  us,  may 
be  called  Knowing  Beings.  This  feems  to  have 
been  the  only  and  genuine  Senfe  in  which  the 
Antients  underftood  the  Word  Autpcvsg  in  ge- 
neral. In  this  Senfe  it  might  be  applied  not 
only  to  die  fupreme  Being,  but  to  all  other 
Natures  fuperior  to  Man  -,  and  in  this  Senfe  it 
was  applied  by  them  to  God  and  all  fuch  Na- 
tures. Actipoveg  quaji  AarfAoveg,  fays  r  Plato  : 
Now  Actypav  fignifies  Doffius,  Peritus,  Set 'ens , 
&c.  from  whence  comes  Accr^ca-vvv}  Scientia, 
Peritia„  &c,  rrr-  And  this  feems  to  anfwer 
He/tod's  Defcription  of  them  ;  f  for  he  allures 
us,  that  they  obferve,  (/.  e.  know)  every  thing 
done  on  Earth,  and  that  they  are  Privy-coun- 
cellors  to  Jupiter.  l  Laffiantius  and  Eujiathius 
put  this  Etymology  beyond  difpute. 

'Tis  proper  likewTife  to  remark,  that v  Hefiod 
calls  his  Demons  iS-Xoi  xa\  i7ri%6ovioi  (good  and 
terrejirial)  which  feems  to  infinuate,  that  there 

r  Plat,  in  Cratylo. 

f  Hejtod.   ubi  fupra. 

1  Laaant.  II.  14.    Euftath.  in  Iliad.  A.  ^222. 

*  Hefiod,  ubi  fupra, 

were 


(6) 

were  other  Demons  who  were  neither  good  nor 
terrefirial ;  and  therefore  this  PaiTage  is  fo  far 
from  proving,  that  all  Demons,  or  Demons-  in 
general,  were  in  Hefiod 's  Time  fuppofed  to  be 
good  and  terrcjlrial,  or  fuch  as  had  once  lived 
on  Earth,  (for  that  this  is  the  true  Signification 
of  inxflwoi  is  evident  both  from  w  Hefiod  him- 
felf  and  Homer)  that  it  is  an  Intimation  to  the 
contrary,  and  a  prefumptive  Argument  that 
Hefiod  believed  there  were  Demons  of  a  male- 
volent Nature,  who  had  never  been  Inhabi- 
tants of  this  Earth  ;  efpecially,  fince  this  was  a 
Notion  that  prevailed  amongft  all  polite  Na- 
tions, even  from  the  remoteft  Antiquity,  as 
may  be  proved  by  one  or  two  exprefs  Teftimo- 
nies,  which  we  mall  beg  leave  here  to  in- 
fert. 

x  P hit  arch,  in  his  Dio,  affirms,  <c  that  there 
was  a  very  antient  Opinion,  that  certain 
wicked  and  malignant  Demons  envy  good 
Men,  and  endeavour  to  hinder  them  in  the 
Purfuit  of  Virtue,  left  they  mould  be  at  laft 
Partakers  of  greater  Felicity  than  they  en- 
joy ;  "  which  is  confirmed  by  y  Iamblichus. 
—  The  firft  Author  moreover  tells  us,  "  that 
<c  the  ■  Opinion  of  an  evil  Principle,  or  Being, 
:c  was  handed  down  from  the  antient  Mailers 

d.  ibid,  ft  [41.      Horn.  Iliad.  A.  ^  272.    &  Scboliafl. 
m  loc. 

■■it.  in  Dio.     See  likcwife  Cafaubons  Note  upon  this  Paf- 
fage  of  Plutarch,  in  his  Original  of  Temporal  Evils,  Lond.  1615. 

I  )>:  j 
■ 

<c  of 


(7) 


cc 

cc 
cc 


of  divine  Knowledge,  and -Formers  of  Com- 
monwealths, to  the  Poets  and  Philofophers  ; 
and  of  fo  great  Antiquity,  that  its  firft  Au- 
"  thor  could  not  be  found;  and  that  it  was 
<c  embraced  as  Truth  by  the  Generality  of  the 
"  wifeft  Heathens."  The  a  Greeks  called  this 
evil  and  malicious  Being  ^Afe,  [Hades)  as  we 
are  informed  by  this  fame  Author ;  the  Egyp- 
tians, from  whom  the  others  received  their 
Idea  of  him,  Typhon  ->  the  Perfians  and  Chalda- 
ans,  Ahdriman ;  and  from  thefe  laft  it  appears, 
that  he  was  created  by  God,  tempted  Men  to 
all  Kinds  of  Wickednefs,  and  took  the  greater!: 
Delight  in  oppofing  the  divine  Will.  The 
Chaldeans  and  Perfians  acknowledged  Angels, 
both  good  and  bad,  as  diftinct  from  the  Souls 
of  Men.  This  is  evident  from  b  Damafcius, 
Plutarch,  and  Shabriftdni  in  conjunction  with 
the  Sad-der,  or  Compendium  of  the  DoEZrines  of 
Zerdujht,  c  which  exprefly  mentions  fuch  An- 
gels, the  Good  ones  as  guarding  and  protecting 
Men,  the  Bad  ones  as  inftigating  and  tempting 
them  to  .all  Kinds  of  Wickednefs  and  Sin,  and 
afterwards  becoming  the  Inftruments  of  their 
Punifhment,  agreeably  to  the  Scripture  Account 
of  the  fallen  Angels.  — -  And  that  the  d  laft 

a  Diogenes  Laertius  in  Proacm.  ad  Vit.  Philof.  &  "Plutarch. 
This  laft  Author,  in  the  fame  place,  calls  the  good  Principle 
QiU  and  the  bad  one  Aai^cov. 

1  Damafcius  y  Plutarch,  &  Shahrijldni  apud  D.  Hyde  in  Hifl. 
Rel.  vet.  Per/,  c.  22. 

c  Lib.  Sadder  aipud  Dr.  Hyde  Port.  I.  2.  5.9.  &  alibi  paf. 

*3  Lib.  Sad-der  Port.  1.2. 

Angeh 


/ 


(  8). 

Angels  in  particular,  according  to  the  Perfian 
and  Chaldcean  Do&rine,  were  diftinft  from  the 
Souls  of  Men,  is  undeniable \  for  Zerdujht  makes 
all  the  wicked  Souls  to  be  thrown  into  Hell, 
or  Gehevina,  from  the  Bridge  l'chinavar,  and 
to  be  there  confined,  in  the  ftridteft  Manner, 
till  the  Day  of  Judgment ;  e  whereas  his  evil 
Angels  are  left  at  liberty  to  rove  about,  to  trou- 

ble'and  iflfeft  Mankind.  And  that  this  was 

the  Sentiment  of  the  Magi  in  the  earlieft  Times, 
long  before  the  Age  of  Zerdujht,  is  plain  from 
hence,  that  Zerdujht  made  no  f  Alterations  in 
the  doclrinal  and  fundamental  Points  of  their 
Religion,  but  only  abolifhed  fome  fuperftitious 
Rites  and  Practices  that  had  crept  in  amongft 
them  ;  and  that  they  were  never  guilty  of  Ido- 
latry, as  the  neighbouring  Nations  were,  but 
conftantly  adhered  to  the  Worfhip  of  the  one 
only  and  true  God,  as  they  received  it  from 
their  great  Anceftors  Shem  and  E/am,  who  muft 
undoubtedly  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Fall  of  the  Angels :  So  that  we  may  fairly  con- 
clude, that  the  s  Belzebub,  Satan,  and  Sam- 
mael  of  the  Jews  j  the  Ahdriman  of  the  Chal- 

c  Ibid.  Port.  9.  1 6.  &  alibi  paf.    In  fhort,  according  to  Dr. 

.  the  antieni  Pcrfians  and  People  of  the  Eajl  had  the  fame 

Notion  of  the  Devil  and  his  Angels  that  Chrijlians  have  always 

had.     See  likewifc  Stilling Jleet\  Orig.  Sacr.  lib.  iii.  c.  3.  and 

the  C  ,  in  the  Uni<verf.  Hi/I.  vol.  I.  p.  15,  &c. 

1  Dr,  HM  in  Hill.  Rel.  vet.  Per/.   See  likewife  the  Unhierfal 
vol.  2.  p.  71 .  The  Authors  of  which  render  this  Point 
ngly  clear. 

■    vol .  i .  p.  5 1 . 

dceans 


(9) 

dcean  and  Perfians-,  and  the  Hades  of  the  Greeks , 
were  one  and  the  fame  Being,  even  the  Leader, 
or  Prince  of  the  fallen  Angels ,  and  that  thefe 
fallen  Angels  themfelves  were  what  the  Greeks. 
understood  by  their  evil  Demons.  h  Theodoras 
in  Photius  directly  afferts,  that  Ahdriman  is  the 
Devil,  or  Satan,  and  '  Dr.  Hyde  clearly  evinces 
the  fame  thing.  Again,  that  the  Egyptians  and 
Phoenicians  likewife  acknowledge  fuch  wicked 
inferior  Beings,  as  well  as  Typhon  their  Chief, 
is  plain  from  the  genuine  Remains  of  their  great 
Lawgiver  and  Philofopher  k  Hermes  Trifme- 
giftuSy  or  Thoyth ,  who  therein  affirms,  c  c  that 
u  Demons  are  the  Enemies  of  Men,  and  vex 
"  them;"  and  he  moreover,  in  the  very  Lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  calls  them  evil  Angels ; 
which  Aflertion  is  more  fully  illuftrated  and 
explain' d  by  Cafaubon,  Stillingfleet,  and  other 
learned  Men. Now  that  the  Greeks  bor- 
rowed both  their  firft  Syftem  of  Religion  and 
their  Notions  of  intelligent  Beings  from  the  Egyp- 
tians and  Phoenicians  \  is  allowed  by  their  own 
Writers.  Many  more  Arguments  and  Teftimo- 
nies  might  be  offered,  to  prove,  that  a  Belief  of 
evil  Demons,  diftindl  from  the  Souls  of  Men,  pre- 
vailed amongfl  all  polite  Nations,  from  the  re- 

b  Tbecdor.  apud  Phot  in.  Bibliothec.  p.  IC9. 

1  Dr.  Hyde. in  ftiit.  Kef.  vet.  Per/,   c.  22' 

k  Hermes  tfrifmegift.  apud  Laflant.  in  Jib.  2.  de  fall*.  Relig. 
Het'mes  here  likewife  calls  the  evil  Principle  abovemention'd  thi 
Demonarcb,  or  Prince  of  Demons,  which  is  likewife  Scripur.e 
Language. 

1  Herodot.  in  Enter?,   Diodor.  Siculus  in  Bibl.  Hilt  1.  1. 

C  moteft 


(   io  )  ,    ; 

nioteft  Times ;  but  what  has  been  already  pro- 
duced is,  we  conceive,  abundantly  fufficient  to 
convince  all  reasonable  and  unprejudiced  Minds. 
*  Philo,  indeed,  tells  us,  that  Angels,  Souls,  and 
Demons  (both  good  and  bad)  were  the  fame 
Beings :  but  this  muft  be  underftood  of  their 
intelligent  Nature  and  good  or  bad  Difpofitions, 
/.  e.  the  Angels  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  the  De- 
mons of  the  Greeks,  and  the  Souls  of  departed 
Men  agree  in  this,  that  they  are  immaterial  in- 
telligent Beings,  fome  of  them  good  and  fome 
bad ;  and  agreeably  to  this  our  blejfed  Saviour 
declares,  that  n  after  the  Refurrec~lion  Men  are 
as  the  Angels  which  are  in  Heaven.  —  And,  that 
c  all  who  know  the  Scriptures  and  the  Power  of 
God  are  Satisfied  of  this  Truth.  Philo,  I  fayy 
mull:  be  thus  underftood,  otherwife  he  is  in- 
coniiftent  with  himfelf ;  for  in  another  Place 
Fhe  obierves,  "  that  there  were  many  intel- 
"  leclual  Powers  (i.  e.  Angels)  with  God  be- 
t£  fore  the  Creation  of  the  World —  i  that 
tc  thofe  Beings  which  the  Scripture  calls  Angels r 

and  Philofopliers  Demons,  arc  the  immediate 
"   Minillers  of  the  Almighty,  are  as  it  were  the 

Ears  and  Eyes  of  the  great  King,  do  vaftly 
11  excel  in  Wifdom,  Purity,  and  Excellency  of 

Nature,  thofe  Spirits  who  were  once  invefted 

with  Body,  inhabit  much  more  noble  and 

//.  J ud.  de  Gigant. 
Mar.  xii.  25.  °  Mar,  xii.  24. 

P  Phil.  Jud.  de  Confuf  Ling.  p.  345.  Lutet.  Parif.  1640* 
■  1.  p.  5&S,  586,  &c. 

cc  fublime 


**  fublime  Regions  than  they  do  •"  —  in  fhort, 
he  ufes  the  Word  r  tyv%ij  fometimes  as  fynony- 

mous  to  ,z<rvsvtu<z,  dcrutxoirov,  cl&uvoirov,  or  Xoy@^>, 
i.  e.  a  Spirit,  incorporeal  Being,  an  immortal 
Subjiance,  a  rational  Power,  or  Principle,  &c. 
And  this  Obfervation  is  fufficient  to  reconcile 
all  the  feeming  Contradictions  to  be  found  in 
him  on  this  Head.  Befides,  Philo,  being  a 
yew,  muff,  have  been  very  well  acquainted 
with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Teftament ;  and 
that  thefe  treat  Angels  as  Beings  different  from, 
and  fuperior  to  the  Souls  of  Men,  is  univerfally 
allowed. 

III.  This  laft  Signification  of  the  Word 
Aatpav  is  what  at  prefent  I  muft  infill  chiefly 
upon,  viz.  a  created  intelligent  Being  fuperior 
to  Man  -,  (for f  that  He/iod's  Demons  were  made, 
or  created,  by  the  Gods,  he  plainly  afferts)  and 
1  all  fuch  Beings  as  thefe  were,  from  the  re- 
moter! Antiquity,  thrown  into  two  different 
Claries.  The  one  were  reckon'd  of  a  good  and 
beneficent  Nature,  and  Friends  to  Mankind  $ 
the  other  the  reverfe  —  Beings  that  (as  we 
have  above  obferved)  were  implacable,  had  an 
invincible  Averfion  to  Men,  and  made  it  their 
Bufineis  to  defeat  them  in  all  their  eood  Pur- 

fuits to  influence   and  perfwade   them  to 

what  was  wrong,  and,  in  fhort,  to  draw  them 

r  Phil.  Jud.  de  Somn.  p.  584,  &c. 

f  Hefiod.  lib.  1.   y  no. 

:  Plut.  Dr.  Hyde,  Stillingfieet ;  Cafauhon,  &c.  ubi  fupra. 

C  2  tO 


(  " ) 

to  Deftrudtion.  That  the  Notion  of  evil  De- 
mons (in  this  laft  Senfe  of  the  Word  Aui'pav) 
was  coeval  with  that  of  good  ones,  is  evident 
from  Homer,  who  is  as  early  an  Author  as  any, 
if  not  the  firft,  amongft  the  Greeks  that  men- 
tions either  of  them,  and  v  who  mentions  both 
of  them.  To  the  evil  Demon  he  joins  the  E- 
pithets  m  ytctitog,  x  q-vyeocg,  and  ?  %<Lki7rl<;,  and 
even  the  Word  z  Aaipav  itfelf,  without  any  of 
thefe,  he  ufes  in  a  bad  Signification.  a  He  more 
than  intimates,  that  thefe  Demons  precipitate 
Men  into  bad,  pernicious,  and  even  fatal  A- 
clions :  —  and  that  thefe  Actions  are  not  only 
unfortunate  and  phyfically  evil,  but  likewife  in- 
clude b  morel  Turpitude  in  them,  may  be  col- 
lected from  Pindar,  c  who  feems  to  allude  to 
the  Places  of  Homer  here  hinted  at: — Which 
Paffage,  becaufe  it  is  very  remarkable,  throws 
great  Light  upon  the  prefent  Subject,  and  has 
not  been  taken  notice  of  by  any  Writer  en- 
gaged in  the  prefent  Controverfy  concerning  the 
Nature  of  Demons  and  their  Operations  upon 
Men,  I  mall  produce  at  length  with  the  Sch- 
liafis  Note  upon  it. 

•   tiom,  Uiad.    0.   1 66.    O.  405.    p.   gS,  104,  &c 
'    Qty.   K.  64. 

1  'fT-  E.  396. 
J  Odltf.  T.  201. 

z  Vid.  Horn.  Iliad.  0.  166.  8c  Scboliaji.  in  lac. 
'  In  lac.  jjun  laudat. 
1  Pind.  HT0.  Od.  3.  ScScboHaJt.   in  Joe. 

c  X  '  '   -  ^-  Delj dan.  not.  in  Pind.  HT0.  Od.  t. 

p.  118.  Ed.  Schurpr.  1616. 


Aufyuv  5*  erepog,    ig  Desman  vero  alter,  (malus 

MAQV    rt&cuc     idu^u-  fclL)  ad  malum  qui  impulerat, 

*  «rtf  wv.  Perdidit  eam« 

cO  'Azxoxoik     ug  *po\  By  the  hs?&  Acti^v  is  to  be 

?jy    JiyeAtMQifo      'O    Sf  underftood  the  *w7,  or  «//'<■&</, 

uJ,  £/5  T*  T*  p****  oppofcs  the  good  one.   (Either  A-£ 

r**i    »■>            *  t~   a,     *  Coromss  own  vitious  Difpofi-'--*?--*' 

jc«K8Py/«v    rps**  JW  tionj  or  her  evil  Demon  &&*** 

Kop«v**«,  M*i  avcupsBvpm  tempted  her  to  commit  the  Sin^  ? 

«utviv  x«T£«rKcU*ir6  KaA-  of  Adultery,  and  was  theCaufe/   7y' 


*/^*%o;  £s  <})^<nv,  8  Trav-     of  her  Deftrucliory   Callima^^ 
T££,  «AA'  xq  t(T%ev  £T£pog     chus  alfo  ufes  this  Expreflion, 
Auiixuv.  Not  all,  but  fetch  as  were  pofe- 

Jefsd  by  the  evil  Demon. 

Pindar  lived  about  470  Years  before  Chri/i, 
near  a  Generation  before  Herodotus  y  and  Calli- 
machus  about  270.  Hence  'tis  apparent,  that 
the  Opinion  of  evil  "Demons  prevailed  amongft 
the  Greeks  in  very  early  Ages,  and  that  they 
took  the  Office  of  thefe  wicked  Beings  to  be 
intirely  of  the  fame  Nature  with  that  afligned 
to  the  Devil  and  his  Angels  in  Scripture ;  and 
confequently  'tis  highly  probable,  that  they 
were  the  fame  implacable  and  malicious  Be- 
in^. 

But  this  will  receive  a  farther  Acceflion  of 
Strength  if  we  confider,  that  the  Aaipuv  of  the 
Greeks  (in  the  Senfe  of  the  Word  at  prefenr 
under  Confideration)  anfv/ered  to  the  Genius  of 
the  Latins  -y  and  therefore  the  uyuSog  Aalpuv 
(or  the  h^iog  Aatpuv  as  he  is  called  by  d  Calli- 

a  Callimach.  Hymn,  in  Ccr.  1.  36. 

machus) 


chus)  of  the  Greeks  was  the  bonus  Genius,  of  the 
Latins ',  and  the  Kctxog  Aotipcov  (or  erfg©*  Aatp&ov, 
as  c  Pindar  and  Callimachus  ftile  him)  of  the 
former,  the  ma&u  Genius  of  the  latter.  Many 
Authors  concur  to  evince  this  Point.  The  Paf- 
(age  of  Pindar  above  mentioned,  with  the  &rfe- 
UafYs  Note,  is  full  and  exprefs  in  favour  of  it ; 
f  Callimachus  adds  his  Teftimony  to  fupport  it ; 
Pindar,  in  another  Place,  applies  to  the  Word 
Aulfjutiv  the  Epithet  s  fyiGxi®-,  which  anfwers 
to  the  Notion  the  Latins  entertained  of  their 
Genius,  viz.  that  he  attended  the  Man  he  was 
allotted  to,  from  his  firft  Entrance  into  Life. 
Menander,  as  cited  by  Plutarch,    fays,  ccTavJi- 

tivi^J.   AclifJLOVCt  (TVfJL7rCLPcL<?CCTitV     iV$Vg    fyjG{AeV(*)     fJLV- 

^■ccyctifcv  tx  (ilx;  and  Empedocles,  as  cited  by  the 
fame  Author,  Sirjoti  ring  qpav  was-ov  'zxrupotXctfji- 
Gavatri    '/.at  i  v.ot\<ip^\)   poison   xat   Aotipovsg  • 

which  intirely  correfponds  with  what  h  Servius 

has  laid  down  concerning  the  Genii, Cum 

najcimur,  fays  he,  Genios  duos  fortimur-,  unus 
qui  hortatur  ad  bona,  alter  qui  depravat  ad 
mala,  nee  incongrue  dicuntur  Genii,  quod  cum 
unujquifque  genitus  fuerit,  ei  Jlatim  objervatores 
deputantur ;  '  Plautus  and  Plutarch  put  it  be- 
yond all  doubt,  that  the  Romans  had  in  very 

*  Pi  ml    ubi  fbpra,  Callimach.   fragm.  Bentleii  91. 
'  Callimach.   ibid.  Sc  Bentleii  not.  in  loc. 
'   find.  OATMn.  Od.  13.  1.  148. 
r   Serxius  in  firg-  JEn.   1.  6.   it  743. 

I  onf  Tint,  in  Bruto  cum  Plaut.  Metuccbm.  Aft.  r.  Sc.  t. 

■    &  F>;J.  Taubm,  commend  in  loc.    Ed,  Scbttr.  1621. 

early 


(   15  ) 

early  Times  a  Notion  of  good  and  evil  Genii ; 
the  Author  of  Onomafiicon  vetus  Latino-Gr  cecum 
renders  the  Latin  Word  Genius  by  the  Greek 
Actipav ;  and  laftly,  the  Platonic  PhUofopher 
k  Apuleius  frequently  tranflates  the  Word  Aat- 
(jl&v  by  Genius.  Many  other  Teftimonies  and 
Arguments  might  be  produced  in  favour  of  our 
AfTertion,  but  the  Truth  of  it  is  fo  apparent, 
that  they  are  intirely  fuperfluous. 

But  to  come  nearer  the  Point  we  have  in 
View,  the  Word  Genius  cannot,  with  any  to- 
lerable Propriety,  be  deduced  a  gignendo,  as 
J  fome  of  the  Antients,  particularly  Varro,  have 
fondly  imagined  :  - —  this  Etymology  is  too  far 
fetch'd  and  unnatural,  and  'tis  well  known  that 
nothing  can  be  more  ridiculous  than  many  of 
Farro's  Derivations ,  —  'tis,  in  all  Probability, 
to  be  fought  for  in  the  Eaft,  as  a  great  Part  of 
the  Latin  Words  are ;  efpecially  thofe  that  the 
Latins  m  borrowed  from  the  Etrufcans.  This 
will  be  clear,  almoft  to  Demon  ftration,  when 
we  confider,  that  the  n  Arabic  Giny  or  Gen,  is 
taken  for  a  Being  of  the  fame  kind  with  the 

Latin  Genii  ^  Aft.  xii.  15. that  it  fignifies  a 

Demon,  in  the  Scripture  Senfe  of  the  Word, 

0  I/a.  xiii.  21.  Matt.  xvii.  15,  &c. and  that 

the  p  JEthiopic  Genn  denotes  a  Spectre,  or  Ap- 

k  Apuleius  de  Deo  Socrat.  &  de  Mundo. 

1  VarrOy   Feftus,   Cenforin.  &c.       v 

m  Vid.  Differt.  de  Ling.  Etrur.  reg.  vern.  Oxon.  1738. 

f  Cajiel.  Lex. 

0  Cajiel.  Lex.  &  Schind.  Lex.  pent, 

P  Vid.  Bibl.  Polyglot,  in  loc. 

parition. 


C  I*  ) 

parition,  Mar.  vi.  49.  and  the  JD^y/7  himfelf, 
i  Aict£o\&,  i  Joh.  iii.  8,  &c.  In  fhort,  that 
Gen  both  in  the  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  Lan- 
guages, when  ufed  in  a  bad  Senfe,  exactly  an- 
fwers  both  to  the  Aoupovig,  or  Aaipovia,  and 
Aioc£o\@^  of  Scripture ;  from  whence  we  may, 
with  no  fmall  Appearance  of  Reafon,  infer, 
that  thefe  Words  are  all  of  the  fame  Import ; 
and  that  a  Demon,  or  Genius,  in  the  bad  Ac- 
ceptation of  the  Word,  is  a  Devil,  or  evil  Spi- 
rit, ftrictly  and  properly  fo  called.  But  of  this 
more  hereafter. 

Before  I  difmifs  this  Point,  it  may  not  be 
improper  to  obferve,  that  Herodotus,  the  Fa- 
ther of  Hiftory,  ufes  the  Word  Auluav  both  in 
the  firft  and  laft  Significations  we  have  taken 
notice  of.  Aocl^m  equivalent  to  Qeog  may  be 
feen  in  his  Clio,  c.  87.  and  for  a  tutelary  infe- 
rior rational  Being  (fynonymous  to  dyad  eg 
AuifJLav,  or  bonus  Genius)  ibid.  c.  86.  Which 
laft  Paflage  I  take  to  be  very  valuable ;  fince 
the  Office  of  a  good  Demon,  or  Genius,  is  there 
defcribed,  and  exactly  agrees  with  that  affigned 
to  good  Angels  in  Scripture,  viz.  to  guard  and 
protect  the  righteous  and  religious  Man  from 
all  impending  Evils  and  Dangers;  and  iince 
from  hence  we  learn,  with  Certainty,  that  this 
Opinion  did  not  only  prevail  amongft  the 
Greeks  when  Herodotus  wrote  his  Hiftory, 
(about  450  Years  before  the  Commencement  of 
the  Chrtjlian  /Era)  but  likewife  amongft  the 
Perfian$4  when  Cyrus  conquered  the  Kingdom 

of 


(i7  ) 

of  Lydia  (near  560  Years  before  that  Period, 
and  even  before  the  Time  oi  Zerdafht)  —  two 
Confederations  of  very  great  Moment  in  the 
prefent  Enquiry.  That  Herodotus  believd  the 
Exiftence  of  toil  Demons ,  or  Genii,  is  likewife 
evident  from  the  Word  1  Kuao^cti^ovtyj,  which 
may  be  found  in  the  ufual  Senfe  in  his  Wri- 
tings. 

What  has  been  faid  of  the  Word  Aalpw  is 
likewife  to  be  underfliood  of  its  fynonymous 
Term  r  Aoupivw  -,  it  may  however  be  obferv'd, 
that  this  laft  is  moft  frequently  ufed  by  the 
facred  Writers,  as  the  other  is  by  the  profane. 
I  might  eafily  prove  this  by  an  Induction  of 
Particulars,  were  it,  in  any  manner,  neceifarys 
but  as  it  is  not,  I  mall  only  remark,  that  the 
Word  Aaipoviov  is  properly  an  Adjective  in  the 
neuter  Gender,  and  that  according  to  the  ge- 
nius of  the  Greek  Language,  fuch  Adjectives 
are  very  frequently  equivalent  to  Subftantives  of 
the  fame  Original. 

From  the  Authorities  produced  it  appears 
highly  probable, 

Firfi,  That  the  Greek  Authors  who  preceded 
the  Birth  of  Chrift  did  not  always  underftand 
by  the  Words  Axipovsg  and  Ampina,  the  Spirits, 
or  Ghojis,  of  departed  Men,  even  when  thefe 
Words  were  applied  to  finite  Beings, 

ci  Herodot.  in  Clio,  c.  87.   k  alibi. 

x  Pro  ipfo  Numine  paflim  fumitur  apud  Xenopbontem,  De- 
tnoflh.  Athen.  Sec.  —  Item  pro  Damone  bono  &  malo.  Vid. 
Stepk.  Thefaur,  Ling.  Gr#c, 

D  Secondly, 


(  18  ) 

Secondly,  That  when  they  were  taken  in  a 
bad  Senfe,  they  were  generally  fuppofed  to 
mean  fuch  Beings  as  the  apojlate  Angels  are  re- 
prefented  to  be  in  Scripture ;  lince  the  Office 
and  Difpofition  of  the  apojlate  Angels  are  attri- 
buted to  thefe  Beings.     And 

Ubirdly^  That  the  Egyptians,  'Chaldeans , 
Phoenicians,  Perfiafis,  Greeks,  &c.  did  all  firmly 
believe  the  Exigence  of  one  particular  evil  Be- 
ing, under  whofe  Conduct  and  Direction  were 
many  others ;  and  that,  from  what  we  find 
delivered  by  the  moil  antient  Writers  of  all 
thefe  Nations,  thefe f  evil  Beings  did,  in  Nature, 
Office  and  Difpofition,  agree  with  the  Devil 
and  his  Aigels,  as  the  focred  Writers  defcribe 
them. 

IV.  I  {hall  now  proceed  to  confider  the  Senfe 
in  which  the  Words  Aaipoveg  and  Acupoviu  •  are 
ufed  in  the  New  Tejiament ;  but  before  this  can 
be  done,  it  will  be  neceflary  to  enquire  into  the 
true  Import  and  Meaning  of  the  Words  Zajoivccg 
and  AidEoX@*. 

The  firft  of  thefe  is  of  Hebrew,  the  fecond 
of  Greek  Extraction.  Sctjams  is  only  the  He- 
drew  yov  Satan  with  a  Greek  Termination ; 
it  jignifies  Akerfarins,  Inimicus,  Hcjlis,  &c. 
from  the  Verb  pltf  Satan  acherjatus  eft,  hofiis 

it,  impedvvit,   &c.    The  infpired  Writers  of 
he  Old  Tefiament  often  underftand  by  it  the 

Plutarch,  in  Sympofiac. 

Devil3 


(  19) 

Devil \  or  Chief  of  the  fallen  Angels,  that  grand 
Enemy  of  Mankind.  In  this  Senfe  it  muft 
certainly  be  taken,  fob  i.  6,  7,  8,  9,  12. 
Zech.  iii.  1,  2,  &c.  where  it  is  rendered  by  the 
Septuagint  AwSoA^.  And  the  Juftnefs  of  this 
Verfion  is  confirmed  by  St.  Matthew,  who 
makes  Zctjav&g  and  Aid£oh@*>  to  be  the  felf- 
fame  Being,  i.  e.    the  Chief  of  the  fallen  A?i- 

gels,    ch.  iv.   1,    5,   8,   10.  by  St.  Mark, 

ch.  i.   13. by  St.  Luke,  ch.  iv.  2,  3,  5,  6, 

8. and  laftly,    by  St.  John,  the  Author  of 

the  Apocalypfe,  ch.  xx.  2,  Gfc.  Let  this  fuffice 
for  an  Explanation  of  the  Word  Jtottf  Satan,  or 
JZeflavcts  Satanas. 

As  for  the  Word  A.^SoA^,  I  remember  not 
to  have  feen  it  in  any  Greek  Author  before  the 
Birth  of  Chrif,  except  the  Septuagint,  who, 
as  I  have  juft  obferved,  ufe  it  to  denote  the 
fame  implacable  and  malicious  Being  that  the. 
Hebrews  underftand  by  the  Word  pi*>  Satan 
above  mentioned  -,  and  fo  do  the  Writers  of  the 
New  cTefia?nent,  as  has  been  clearly  proved. 
The  Word  2^Qc\vj,  indeed,  is  to  be  found  as 
equivalent,  in  Signification  to  the  Latin  Ca- 
lumnia,  Criminatio,  Obtreclatio,  &c.  in  various 
Authors,  preceding  (not  only  the  Chrijlian  /Era, 
but  even)  the  Age  of  the  Septuagint  them- 
felves,  particularly  c  Herodotus,  Plato,  &c.  And 
that  even  the  Word  Aid£c\@^  itfelf  was  known 
to  the  antient  Greeks  is  evident  from v  Plautusy 

1  Hero  dot.  in  Polymn.    Plat,  in  Apol.  &C. 
I  Phut.  Aginar*  A&.  3 .  Sc.  3 . 

D  2  who 


( 1° ) 

who  ules  it  as  a  proper  Name  in  a  Scene  where 
all  the  proper  Names  are  Greek,  as  this  ma- 
nifeftly  is ;  as  likewife  from  the  Superlative  &*- 
€cxdrai&  in  *  Anftopbanes,  and  the  Adverb 
StaCoXag  in  x  Thucydides,  both  apparently  Deri- 
vatives from  AictcoxgH  and  agreeing  in  Signifi- 
cation with  oictQcXr,  above  mentioned : and 

that  Aict£oA@-  in  the  New  Tejlament,  is  deduced 
from  the  Verb  SiuQdxXa  calumnior,  obtreclor, 
criminor,  &c.-  plainly  appears  from  Rev.  xii. 
9,  ic.  where  the  Office  of  this  Author  of  Evil 
is  defcribed,  and  the  true  Reafon  of  his  Name 
Atd^o?,®*  affign'd.  y  Athenceus  likewife  gives  us 
to  under ftand,  that  this  Word  was  not  un- 
known to  Pagan  Writers  in  the  Senfe  wherein 
'tis  applied  to  the  Prince  of  fallen  Angels  in 
Scripture,  when  he  fays  "  many  of  Plato's 
"  Followers  were  tvqclwuo)  xcti  SidSoXoi,  ingenio 
cc  tyrannico  &  calumniator  e$r  The  Verb  z  &&- 
idhXtt)  fometimes  anfwers  to  the  Latin  invi- 
diam conflo,  odiofwn%  inimicum,  ,&c.  reddo ;  and 
if  we  fuppofe  Axa'SoA(^,  as  applied  to  the 
grand  Adveriary  and  Envier  of  the  Happinefs 
of  Mankind,  to  flow  from  this  Signification  of 
the  faid  Verb,  it  will  not  only  agree  with  the 
known  Nature  and  Difpofition  of  this  wicked 
Being,  but  will  likewife  very  well  correfpond 
with    the  Hebrew  Word    ycV   Satan.     The 

w  Aifi^h.  in  Equit. 
*  Vbutydid.    p.  202. 
y  Jit  hen.  Deipiujcpb.  lib.  n.  fub  finern 
Thcfaur.  Ling.  Cr.-. 

Word 


in} 

Word  therefore  Aidco\(&  is  expreffive  of  {q 
many  wicked  Offices  and  Qualities  of  the  De- 
vi/, that  a  more  appofite  Name  in  the  Greek 
Language  could  not  have  been  given  him. 

Having  thus  confidered  the  true  Import  and 
Meaning  of  the  Words  Z,<x]avu,$  and  AidGo\@* 
in  the  New  Tejlament,  it  will  not  be  difficult 
to  determine  the  proper  and  undoubted  Signi- 
fication of  the  Words  Aai^cov  and  Aoupcviov  in 
that  facred  Book,  particularly  the  Go/pels ;  and 
this,  of  courfe,  will  enable  us  to  form  a  right 
Judgment  of  thofe  Perfons  therein  faid  to  have 
been  Demoniacks,  or  Perfons  poffeffed  with 
Demons,  and  of  the  Diftempers  they  were  af- 
flicted with,  as  well  as  the.  Caufes  of  thofe  Di- 
ftempers. For,  if  we  can  demonftrate,  that 
Satan  himfelf  is  a  Demon,  and  the  Prince  of 
Demons ;  that  to  caft  out  Demons  is  to  caft  out 
Satan  -,  that  for  Satan  to  caft  out  Demons  is  for 
him  to  caft  out  himfelf ;  that  to  caft  out  De- 
mons by  Belzebab  the  Prince  of  Demons  is  to 
caft  out  Demons  by  Satan,  &c.  I  fay,  if  all 
this  can  be  demonftrated,  it  will,  it  muft  ap- 
pear, that  Belzebub  is  a  Demon,  (which  is 
allowed  by  all  Parties  engaged  in  the  prefent 
Controversy  concerning  the  meaning  of  Demo- 
niacks  in  the  New  Tejlament)  and  at  the  fame 
time  Satan,  or  the  Devil-,  that  this  Belzebub 
who  is  Satan,  or  the  Devil,  is  ;iot  to  be  di- 
ftinguifhed  in  any  other  manner  from  the  other 
Demons  than  as  a  Prince,  or  Chief,  from  thofe 
who  act  under  his  Command  5   that  therefore 

Demons 


( *•  j 

Demons  are  exactly  of  the  fame  Nature  and 
Complexion  and  Difpofition  with  Satan,  or  the 
Devil,  who  is  their  Prince  ;  and  in  fhort,  that 
the  Demons  of  the  New  Tejla?nent  are  Devils 
ftridtly  and  properly  fo  called.  Now  that  all 
this  is  true,  may,  in  the  ftrongeft  Manner,  and 
with  the  ftricT:eft  JufKce,  be  inferrd  from  the 
following  Paffages  of  the  Evangelijls. 

Then  was  brought  unto  Him  one  pofjefled  with 
a  Demon,  bli?idand  dumb :  and  He  healed  him, 
infomuch  that  the  Blind  and  Dumb  both  /pake 
and  Jaw. 

And  all  the  People  were  amazed,  and  f aid,  Is 
not  this  the  Son  of  David  ? 

But  when  the  Pharifees  heard  it,  they  [aid, 
This  Fellow  doth  not  cajl  out  Demons,  but  by 
Belzebub  the  Prince  of  the  Demons. 

And  Jesus  knew  their  Thoughts,  and  faid 
unto  them,  Every  Kingdom  divided  againjl  it/elf 
is  brought  to  Defolation,  and  every  City  or  Houfe 
divided  againjl  itjelfjhall  not  jl and. 

And  if  Satan  cajl  out  Satan,  he  is  divided  a- 
gainjl  himfelf\  howjhall  then  his  Kingdom  jl  and'? 

And  if 1 \  by  Belzebub  cajl  out  Demons,  by 

)fn  do  your  Children  cajl  them  out?  Therefore 
they  Jl:  all  be  your  fudges. 

But  if  I  cafl  out  Demons  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  then  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you. 

Ok  elfe  how  can  one  enter  into  a  Jlrong  Mans 
Houfe,  and  Jpoil  his  Goods,  except  he  firjl  bind 
jlrong  Man  ?    and  then  he  will  Jpoil  his 
Jlcu/e, 

He 


(*3) 

He  that  is  not  with  me  is  againji  me,  and  he 
that  gathereth  not  with  me  fcattereth  abroad. 

Wherefore  1  fay  unto  you,  All  manner  of  Sin 
and  Blajphemy  Jhall  be  forgiven  unto  Men  ;  but 
the  Blajphemy  againji  the*  Holy  Ghoft  Jhall  not 
be  forgiven  unto  Men. 

And  whofoever  fpeaketh  a  Word  againji  the 
Son  of  Man,  it  Jhall  be  forgiven  him :  but 
whofoever  fpeaketh  again/l  the  Holy  Ghoft,  // 
Jhall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  Worlds 
neither  in  the  World  to  come a.     Again, 

And  He  was  cajling  out  a  Demon,  and  it 
was  dumb.  And  it  came  to  pafs,  when  the  De- 
mon was  gone  out,  the  Dumb  fpake :  and  the 
People  wondered. 

But  fome  of  them  [aid,  He  cafteth  out  Demons 
through  Belzebub  the  Chief  of  the  Demons. 

And  others  tempting  him,  fought  of  him  a 
Sign  from  Heaven. 

But  he  knowing  their  Thoughts,  [aid  unto 
them,  Every  Kingdom  divided  againji  it/elf  is 
brought  to  Deflation :  and  a  Houje  divided  a- 
gainfl  a  Houje,  falleth. 

If  Satan  aljb  be  divided  againji  himfelf  how 
Jhall  his  Kingdom  f  and?  Because  ye  say, 

THAT  I  CAST  OUtDeMONS  THROUGH  BeL- 
ZEBUB. 

And  if  I  by  Belzebub  cafl  out  Demons,  by 
whom  do  your  Sons  cajl  them  out  ?  Therefore  Jhall 
they  be  your  'Judges. 

.  \  Matt,  xii,  22,  23, 24, 25,  26, 27 ',  28,  29, 30,  31,  32, 

But 


(  H  ) 

But  if  I  with  the  Finger  of  God  caft  out 
Demons,  no  doubt  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  come 
upon  you. 

When  ajlrong  Man  armed  keepeth  his  Palace \ 
his  Goods  are  in  Peace. 

But  when  a  Jlronger  than  he  Jhall  come  upon 
him,  and  overcome  him,  he  taketh  from  him  all 
his  Armour  wherein  he  trufted,  and  divideth  his 
Spoils. 

He  that  is  not  with  me,  is  againjl  me :  and 
he  that  gather eth  not  with  me,  fcattereth. 

When  the  Unclean  Spirit  is  gone  out 
of  a  Man,  he  walketh  through  dry  Places,  feek- 
ing  Reft :  and  finding  none,  he  faith,  I  will  re- 
turn unto  my  Houfe  whence  I  came  out. 

And  when  he  cometh,  he  findeth  it  Jwept  and 
gar?iijl:ed. 

"Then  goeth  he,  and  taketh  to  him  [even  other 
Spirits  more  wicked  than  himfelf  and  they 
enter  in,  and  dwell  there  :  and  the  laft  State  of 
that  Man  is  wor/e  than  the  firft b. 

Is  it  poflible  for  the  greateft  Sceptic,  after 
reading  theie  Paffages,  to  deny,  that  the  Power 
here  oppofed  to  the  divine  Pcnver,  is  the  Power 

of  Satan,  i.  e.  Diabolical  Power, that  the 

yews  here  attributed  the  Miracles  which  our 
bleffed  Saviour  wrought  by  the  Divine  Pon.ve?\ 
to  Diabolical  Power  ;  and  that  'twas  this  Cir- 
cumftance  which  rendered  their  Sin  fo  exceed- 

1  Ink.  xi.  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24,  25, 

26.    See  Mar,  iii.  zz     ■■     31,  which  is  a  parallel  Place. 

ingly 


(    25    ) 

ingly  heinous  and  malignant,  as  he  intimates  it 
to  be  in  His  Reply  to  them,  —  that  Belzebub, 
Satan,  and  the  Devil,  are  different  Names  of 
the  fame  Being,  — —  that  this  Being  is  a  Demon, 
and  differs  from  the  other  Demons  only  as  a 
Ruler,  or  Governor,   from  thofe  over  whom 

he  prefides, that  the  Demons  of  the  New 

Tejlament  are  unclean  Spirits c,  wicked  Spirits, 
&c.  - —  In  fhort,  that  they  are  apojlate  Angels, 
or  Devils,  ftriclily  and  properly  fo  called. 

To  thefe  moft  clear,  evident,  and  remark- 
able Texts  may  be  added  another  as  appofite 
and  full  to  our  prefent  Purpofe  as  any  of  thofe 
hitherto  produced  ;  And  ought  not  this  Woman, 
being  a  Daughter  0/*  Abraham, d  whom  Satan  hath 
bound,  lo  thefe  eighteen  Tears ,  be  loofedfrom  this 
Bond  on  the  Sabbath  Day,  Here  it  muft  be 
obferved,  that  our  blejjed  Saviour  Himfelf  a- 
cribes  this  chronical  Diforder,  not  to  a  No* 
thing,  a  fictitious  Being,  an  imaginary  Ghojl 
that  had  no  Exijience,  nor  even  to  a  natural 
Caufe,  but  to  the  Devil  himfelf-,  and  as  He 
moft  certainly  afferted  what  was  true,  fo  He 
undoubtedly  delivered  here  the  real  Opinion  of 
the  Jews,  who  attributed  a  Variety  of  Dif- 
eafes  to  the  Influence  of  evil  Beings,  which  in 
many  other  Places  of  the  New  Tejiament  are 
called  Demons,  but  here  Satan,  or  the  Devil; 
fo  that  this  Paffage  may  be  looked  upon  as  an 

c  See  Mar.  iii.  29.  and  Luk.  viii.  2.   where  Demons  are  ex- 
prefly  called  unclean  and  ivkhd  Spirits. 
*  Luk.  xiii.  16. 

3  addi- 


(  *6  )  • 

additional  Proof,  that,  according  to  the  Senti- 
ments of  our  ble[]ed  Saviour ',  and  the  jfewi/h 
Nation,  and  in  truth  and  reality,  Demons,  De- 
vils, fallen,  or  apoftate,  Angels,  &c.  were  the 
iame  Beings.  And  that  thefe  Demons,  thefe 
accuried-  Spirits  of  the  fame  Nature  with  that 
grand  Rebel,  by  way  of  Eminence  called  the 
Devil  (and  under  his  Command)  were  his 
Angels,  /'.  e.  thole  Spirits  that  fell  from  Heaven 
with  him  (and  not  the  departed  Souls  of  wick- 
ed Men)  is  farther  confirmed  by  our  blefled 
•Saviour;  who  makes  an  evident  Diftinclion  be- 
twixt jhefe  Beings,  when  He  declares, .  that  at 
the  Lift  Day  the  Son  of  Man  mall  fay  to  the 
Wicked  on  the  Left  Hand,  e  Depart  from  me, 
ye  Cur/'ed,  into  everlajling  Fire,  prepared  (not 
originally  for  yoii  who  were  Men,  and  defigned 
for  a  better  Place,  but)  for  the  Devil  and  his 
Angels .  This,  in  conjunction  with  the  Texts 
above  cited,  feems  beyond  Contradiction,  to 
imply,  that  the  Demoniacks  mentioned  in  the 
■New  Tef  anient  were  really  and  actually  poffeiTed 

with.  Devils,  or  fallen  Angel's, and  that  this 

was  well  known  to  our  blefjed  Saviour,  and 
firmly  believed  by  the  Evangelijls,  and  even  ac- 
knowledged by  the  Jews  themfelves. 

From  what  has  been  advanced  under  this  laft 
Head,  are  naturally  deducible  the  following 
Observations. 

i .  The  antient  Greek  Authors  who  preceded 

.'.'i/V.    XXV.    41, 

the 


(  27  ) 

the  Birth  of  Chrijt,  feem  to  have  annexed  the 
fame  Idea  to  the  Word  Aa/^n,  or  Aaipovw^ 
when  taken  in  a  bad  Senfe,  as  the  Evangelijls 
did  in  the  New  Tejlament. 

2.  If  it  could  be  proved,  that  two  different 
Ideas  were  annexed  to  this  Word  by  facred  and 
profane  Authors  -,  yet  this  would  not  affect  the 
prefent  Controverfy  concerning  the  Meaning  of 
Demoniacks  in  the  New  Teftament,  which  mufl 
be  determined  by  the  true  Senfe  and  Meaning 
of  the  Word  AaJpuv,  or  Aaipoviov,  m  the  JE- 
vangelijls. 

3.  In  the  Evangelifts  the  Word  Aatpuv,  or 
GQtifMm,  always  denotes  an  intelligent  Being 
of  a  moll  malignant,  noxious,  and  accurfed 
Nature. 

-  4.  The  Devil  himfelf  is  here  placed  at  the 
Head  of  thefe  Beings ;  they  are  here  reprefented 
to  be  iatirely  of  his  Nature  and  Difpofition,  to 
have  in  common  with  him  the  Name  Aaiy.cov^ 
or  Aatpiviov,  to  act  in  fubferviency  to  him  -,  and 
fuch  Beings  as  thefe  are  moreover  in  Scripture 
called  his  Angels ,  i,  e.  fallen  Angels.  The  De- 
mons therefore  of  the  New  T^eft anient  are  fallen 
Angels. 

5.  Though. we  could  not  demonstratively 
prove  (as  we  have  done)  that  the  Demons  of 
the  New  left  anient  were  fallen  Angels  _;  yet,  as 
they  are  Beings  that  really  exift,  as  they  are 
wicked  and  unclean  Spirits,  as  they  are  of  the 
fame  Nature  with  the  Devil  himfelf  and  the 
other  fallen  Angels,  and  laftly,  as  they  aft  under 

his 


(18) 

his  Command  and  Direction  as  the  fallen  Angeh 
do,  they  would  be  to  all  Intents  and  Purpofes, 
with  regard  to  the  Letter  of  the  New  Tejla- 
mentj  the  fame  as  if  they  had  been  fallen  An* 
gels. 

6.  Thofe  unfortunate  Wretches  who  are 
called  Demoniacks  by  the  Evangelijls  were  really 
and  truly  poffefTed  by  thefe  accurfed  Spirits,  who 
brought  upon  them  thofe  Difeafes  which  in 
the  Gojpels  they  are  faid  to  have  been  afflicted 
with.     And  therefore 

7.  The  learned  and  ingenious  Author  of 
two  late  Enquiries  into  the  Meaning  ^/'Demo- 
nicks  in  the  New  Tejlament  determines  with  too 
much  Precipitation,  when  he  condemns  St* 
Aujlin  for  obferving,  "  that  wherefoever  the 
"  Name  of  Demons  occurs  in  the  New  Te/la~ 

tc  menty  nothing  but  evil  Spirits  are  meant, 

when  he  afferts,    that  A/etSoA©*  and  Aaipw 

denote  different  Things, that   the   facred 

Writers  make   a  Difference   betwixt  Demons 

end  evil  Spirit Sy that  Belzebub  and  all  other 

Demons ,  nreGho/iSy  VanitieSy  Nothings,  &c. — * 
Jn  fhort,  when  he  denies  that  Demons  had  any 
Power  over  the  Bodies  of  Men,  and  that  any 
bodily  Diibrders  were  caufed  by  their  Influ- 
ence. 

I  have  not  Time  at  prefent  to  enquire  into 
the  Nature  and  Extent  of  that  Power  which 
God  has  granted  thefe  mifchievous  Beings  over 
Mankind,  nor  to  coniider  thofe  Operations  up- 
on Men  attributed  to  them  both  in  the  Old 

and 


(  29  ) 

and  New  Tejlament;  and  which,  I  am  per- 
fuaded,  upon  Examination,  will  be  found  to 
be  as  confonant  to  right  Reafon,  true  Philofb- 
phy,  and  the  general  Senfe  of  Mankind  in  all 
Ages,  as  they  are  to  Scripture :  Thefe  there- 
fore may  poffibly  be  the  Subject  of  fome  future 
Letter  from, 


S  IR, 


Your  humble  Servant, 


Wadham  College,  Oxford, 
Qgeber  io.  1738. 


Philalethbs, 


A    N 
i 


ENQUIRY 

Into  the  Meaning  of 

D E  MO NIACKS 

I  N    T  H  E 

New  Teftament. 


TicwTis  01   Sioi  rav   IQvqv   SaifiovKt. 

Pfalm  xcv.  5. 


By  T,P.A.P.O.A.B.I.T.CO.S. 


The  Second  Edition,  £orrecled  and  Amended. 

'J 

LONDON: 

Printed  for  J.  R  o  b  e  r  t  s    in  Warwick  Lam, 
MDCCXXXVII.' 

(  Price  One  Shilling.) 


TO    THE 

READER. 

TH  E  Defign  of  the  following  Enquiry  is  to 
clear  up  a  Difficulty  which  naturally  arifes 
in  moft  Men's  Minds,  upon  reading  the  Cures  done 
by  our  Saviour  upon  Perfons  that  were  pofeJJ'ed  by 
Devils.  There  are  but  few  thinking  People,  I 
imagine,  who  do  not  experience  in  themfelves, 
what  the  pious  and  profoundly  learned  Mr.  Jofeph 
Mede  declares  that  he  had  experienced to  mar- 
vel how  thefe  Demoniacks  Jhould  fo  abound  in  and 
about  that  Nation  which  was  the  People  of  Gody 
{whereas  in  other  Nations  and  their  Writings  we 
hear  of  720  fuch,)  and  that  too,  as  it  Jloould  feem, 
about  the  'Time  of  our  Saviour's  being  on  Earth  on- 
ly, becaufe  in  the  Time  before  we  find  no  mention  of 

them  in  Scripture.    The  Wonder  is  yet  the  greater, 

not  to  have  been  accounted  then  by  the  People  of  the 
Jews  any  firange  or  extraordinary  Thing,  but  as 
a  Matter  ufual.  Vid.  Mr.  Mede's  Difcourfe  ont 
John  x.  20.  The  true  Solution  of  this  Difficulty 
js  attempted  to  be  (hewn  in  the  following  Papers. 
Whether  the  Reafons  ufually  affigned  by  Men 
of  Learning  will  prove,  that  Perfons  were  ftria> 
ly  and  properly  pofefed  with  the  Devil,  viz. 
That  Devils  fpake  out  of  the  poffeffed  Perfons ; 
that  they  were  fent  out  of  them,  and  they  entered 
into  the  Herd  of  Swine  ;  that  perfonal  Adtions 
as  well  as  Speeches  are  afcribed  to  them,  which 
can  never  be  afcribed  to  meer  Phrenfy  and 
^Madnefs,  &c."  muft  be  left  to  the  Judgment 
©f  the  Reader,    If  he  is  defirous  of  feeing  that 

Side 


<c 
ec 

<u 


To  the  Reader. 

Side  of  the  Queftion  fet  in  the  ftrongeft  Light,  I 
know  of  none  that  has  treated  it  with  greater 
Accuracy,  than  Dr.  Whitby,  in  his  General  Pre- 
faces to  his  Annotations,  Vid.  Vol.  I.  p.  xviii.  and 
Vol.  II.  p.  xxvi — xxxi. 

Whether  the  Solution  which  I  maintain,  or  that 
of  Others,  be  judged  to  be  true,  the  Caufe  of 
Clirift  is  not  affected.  For  in  both  Cafes  a  real 
Miracle  is  done ;  the  Perfon  affected  is  cured ; 
and  the  Evidence  arifing  from  Miracle  for  the 
Truth  of  Chriftianity,  is  equally  ftrong.  The 
Miracle  is  the  fame,  if  the  Perfon  be  cured, 
whatever  is  the  Caufe  of  his  Diftemper,  whe- 
ther it  proceeds  from  unclean  Spirits,  and  their 
Operations  upon  Human  Bodies;  or  from  any 
Defect,  or  from  any  preternatural  and  extraordi- 
nary Motions  in  them. 

My  prefent  Defign  carries  me  no  further  than 
to  confider  the  Cafes  of  Demoniacks  in  the  New 
Teftament,  and  to  produce  fuch  Authorities  as 
were  neceffary  to  make  them  underftood.  Per- 
haps I  may  proceed  to  explain  what  the  Firjl 
Chrijlians  meant  by  their  Demoniacks  ;  and  then  I 
(hall  diftin&ly  confider  what  Jujlin,  Origen, 
'Tbeophilus,  cfertullian,  Cyprian,  Minutius  Felix, 
Lac7antius,  &c.  have  faid  upon  this  Subjeft.  And 
it  is  for  this  Reafon  that  I  have  faid  nothing  here 
about  the  Expulfion  of  Demons  from  Altars,  or 
of  the  Cojifejpons  made  by  them,  when  exorcifed  by 
Chriftians;  This  being  the  proper  Subject  of  a 
diftindt  Enquiry  into  the  Meaning  of  Demoniacks 
ki  the  firft  Ages  after  Chrift, 


to 

A  N 

ENQUIRY 

Into  the  Meaning  of 

DEMO  N  1  AC  K  S 

I  N    T  H  E 

New   Teftament. 


THERE  is  not  any  one  Inftance  of 
Miracle  in  the  New  Teftament, 
which  more  excites  the  Curiofity  of 
People,  than  the  Cure  of  thofe  who  were  pof- 
feffed  by  Devils.     Every  one  is  apt  to  enquire 

« What  thefe  Poffeffions  were  ?  How  comes 

it  to  pafs  that  we  read  of  fo  many  Perfons,  juji 
at  that  particular  Time,  under  the  Power  of  De- 
vils ?  Whence  is  it,  that  we  feem  fo  rarely  to 
meet  with  Accounts  of  the  fame  Diforders  a- 
mongft  Men,  either  before  or  after  the  Times  of 
efus  Chrift  ?  Whence  was  it  that  God  permitted 

B  fo 


(    *> 

fo  much  Power  to  fuch  unclean  Spirits,  who 
delight  in  doing  Mifchief  ?  Thefe  are  reafona* 
ble  Enquiries,  and  deferve  a  ferious  Anfwer ; 
and  therefore  I  fhall  attempt  impartially  to 
confider  them. 

In  order  to  this,  it  will  be  neceflary  to  ob- 
ferve 

Firjly  That  the  general  Notion  of  Demons 
amongft  the  ancient  Greeks,  was  not  the  No- 
tion which  Chriflians  have  ufually  now  adays 
to  the  Word  Devils ,  but  They  meant  by  it  in 
general,  the  Souls  of  departed  Men.  Hejiod 
tells  us,  that  in  *  the  "  Golden  Age,  when 
Saturn  reigned  in  Heaven,  Men  lived  like 
Gods,  free  from  Evils,  and  died  juft  as  if 
they  had  fallen  afleep :  Thefe  were  made 
Demons,  Good  Beings,  the  Guards  of 
mortal  Men ,  They  obferve  the  Good  and 
Evil  done  here ;  and  cloathed  with  Air, 
they  are  every  where  on  Earth,  number- 
lefs,"  &c.  Thefe  were  Good  Beings,  and 
the  Authors  of  Good  to  Mankind.     The  Souls 

'A9oC*XT0l  TTOHKTOt,*  — — — — — • 

Oi  fOfi  tV«  Kpoyx  vtcruv  or   xpxvu  i[/*Geuritevtv 

When  this  Race  died, 
To*  fjj$i  Axtfxtotii;  ii<rt}  A* 05  ^sy*A8  2^  /3*A#$, 


a 
U 

(i 
(C 
CI 

<c 
cc 
cc 


Again,  f 
Tp»\  y>  pvfiu  iV»»  far]  xfion  ffHXvGoTttpy 

"Oj*  Qv^dorvw,  &Qt  Hrjlod.  Oper.  I. 

of 


(3  ) 

of  thefe  Men,  after  they  were  removed  from 
this  earthly  Life,  were  made  the  Infpe&ors 
of  Human  Affairs,  and  as  they  di/penjed  good 
Things  to  Men,  they  were  called  Demons.  O- 
ther  Writers  have  made  Demons  the  Difpenfers 
of  b  evil  Things  as  well  as  good ;  the  Plagues 
and  Terrors  of  Mankind,  and  the  Authors  of 
much  Evil  to  them. 

Secondly,  Homer  makes  Minerva,  after  fhe 
had  advifed  Achilles  to  lay  afide  his  Anger 

againft  Agamemnon, —He  makes  Minerva,  I 

fay,  retire  to  Heaven  to  the  Palace  of  'Jupi- 
ter c  to  the  other  Demons,  or  Gods.  And  who 
they  were  is  plain,  viz.  Apollo,  Vulcan,  &c. 
The  Scholiajl  fays,  that  d  he  calls  the  Gods, 
Demons,  either  as  knowing  all  Things,  or  dif 
tributing  all  Things  [both  good  and  bad]  to 
Men-,  and  he  like  wife  obferves,  that  Hejiod 
calls  thofe  Demons  (as  Proclus  likewife  e  had 
obferved)  ts$  Ik  t&  £jm  ^eTccr&Weis,  Such  as 
are  removed  from  this  Life. 

**  Ho&pac,  to  abtweit  ret  ttxvtx,  »j  uttpifyw  tu  ccyciGc^  xj  kuxo,  to^  «v- 
dpawroi;.  Proclus  in  Hefiod.  ov  7rufoc  to  JW^ovac  iim>  •••  uX>.(* 
^xfa,  to  foif/tumiv,  o7Tip  t?t  QoSiT&cii  xj  ix<po£tiv,  o^Uiyjoictc,  r^ac, 
7rpo<r<pva>c,  ovoa,et£i&ctt.    Eufeb.  Pise.  Ev.  1.  2.  c.  c. 

Iliad.   I.  v.    222. 
Ipfi  putatis  eos  effe  Deos  quos  nos  daemonas  fcimus. 

Tertul.  ad  Scapu!. 

'**    &Ctlf//OVCC$     KClXi?    TVS    ©SS$,     VlTOl  fatoUWmc*      \uj~i>C,0k  «VU    £   i^ftii^ 

xpiVTuv  etuToi  aery,  m  oti,  j^itt^tcci  u<ri  Xj  alotxnrctt,   tcov  otvtyuTrcsv.. 
e  Proclus  his  Words  are,   Tele,  fjui9^u[juiv^    tv  tyt  I'vTecc  &. 


(4) 

Thirdly,  Though  Hefiod  reckoned  his  De~ 
mons  to  be  fuch  only  as  lived  on  Earth  in  the 
Golden  Age,  in  Saturn's  Time,  yet  Minerva, 
Apollo,  Vulcan,  &c.  were  reckoned  likewife 
Demons  by  Homer,  though  they  were  born 
fomewhat  later.  For  Apollo  was  the  Son  of 
Jupiter  and  Latona,  and  therefore  two  Ge- 
nerations later  than  Saturn.  Vulcan  was  Ju~> 
f 'iter's  Son  by  Juno,  Minerva  was  the  Daugh- 
ter, fome  fay,  of  Jupiter  ;  Others  of  Nep- 
tune. Mars  was  the  Son  of  Jupiter  :  and 
Hebe  his  Daughter.  And  thus  we  may 
trace  the  Origin  of  others  who  are  called 
Demons. 

Fourthly,  This  Notion  of  Demons,  that 
they  were  the  Souls  of  fuch  as  once  had  lived 
upon  Earth,  is  fo  univerfally  allowed  by  Jews 
and  Chriftians  as  well  as  by  Heathens,  that 
fcarce  will  any  one  difpute  it.  Jujlin  Martyr 
fays  f  The  Gods  of  the  Heathen  are  Demons  : 
and  more  expreffly  ftill  he  calls  them  %The 
Souls  of  the  deceafed.  And  defining  what  he 
meant  by  Demoniacks,  he  fays,  hThey,  who 
are  fixed  by  the  Souls  of  deceafed  Perfons, 
are  fuch  as  all  Men  agree  in  calling  Demoni- 

f  Aca/AGvicc  uTiv  01  do)  ruv  stay.    Juftin    Mar.    c.    Tryph. 
p.  310. 

8    ^tvyjx.1  ctTraQct'iMTWJ.      Apol.    2. 

rry^.     ,    .r.a/.5rt  7r*>r*$.     Ibid. 

aCivS* 


(5  ) 

acks.  Jofephus  calls  them  i  the  Souls  of  wick- 
ed Men. 

We  find  it  thus  a  common  Notion  that 
Demons,  and  the  Souls  of  departed  Men,  were 
imagined  to  be  the  fame  :  But  whether  they 
had  any  Powers  committed  to  them  over 
Mankind,  notwithftanding  it  is  fo  frequently 
afferted,  yet  I  do  not  find  it  any  where  fatif- 
fa&orily  proved ;  Nor  do  I  think  that  any  one 
could  prove  y  that  Jupiter,  or  Apollo,  or  Nep- 
tune, or  any  of  the  Good  Men  of  the  Golden 
Age,  after  they  were  departed  this  Life,  ( and 
much  lefs  wicked  Men,)  had  any  ftridl  and 
proper  Powers  over  the  Race  of  Mankind. 
It  is  one  Thing  to  afj'ert  fuch  a  Notion  -,  it  is 
another  to  make  it  good :  and  they  that  at- 
tempt it,  muft  prove  with  Certainty,  that 
the  Heathen  Gods  and  Goddeffes,  Neptune, 
Hecate,  Ceres,  Apollo,  &c.  were  the  real  Au- 
thors of  fuch  Adlions  as  were  imputed  to 
them. 

However,  Whether  Demons  were  the 
Souls  of  Good  or  Bad  Men,  or  whether  it 
can  or  cannot  be  proved  that  they  had  Power 
over  Mankind,  yet 

Fifthly,  The  Notion  generally,  if  not 
univerfally,  prevailed,  that  thofe  who  were 
called  Gods  and  Demons,   were  the  Authors 

1  Axif&ovix,  rxZrcc  vetwam  i^iv  owhunw  wJu*cct».     Tofeph.   dc 
Hello  Jud.  1.  7.  c.  23, 

and 


(  M 

and  true  Caufes  of  extraordinary  Diftempers 
amongft  Mankind.  Thus  Homer,  in  a  very 
remarkable  Manner  imputes  to  a  Demon,  the 
Cafe  of  a  Man  who  lay  k  under  a  Dijiemper, 
in  great  Pain,  for  a  long  while  wafting  -,  a 
hateful  Demon  having  entered  him.  And 
it  was l  Apollo  that  fent  the  Plague  upon  the 
Grecian  Army.  And  hence  Celjus  very 
juftly  obferves,  that  m  in  thoje  T'imes  they  at- 
tributed Difeaies  to  the  Anger  of  the  immortal 
Gods,  and  were  wont  to  defre  their  AJjiftance 
to  cure  them.     It  muft  be  obferved  in  the 

Lajl  Place,  That  when  any  particular 
Dijiemper  had  extraordinary  and  out  of  the 
way  Symptoms  attending  it ;  fuch  as  violent 
Diftortions,    or  Agitations,    or  fuch  Sort  of 

Affe&ions  as  they  could  not  account  for, 

They  imputed  fuch  Difeafes  dire&ly  to  their 
Demons.  E.  g.  The  Epilepjy,  or  Falling  Sick- 
nefs^  (which  JE/culapius  fays,  was  conceived juji 
betwixt  the  Time  of  the  Old  and  New  Moon^ 
as  Serenus  Samonicus  tells  us, 

k  ..,,..  'JEv  vua-ii)  xurxt  Kpxnf  t^Xyiec  xuym 

&ryo\>  t)jjco/^£/©-')    5-yyipcc;  Jj  el  t%pcct  0Ui/Auv.  Odyf.   E. 

1    ■ <!><>?£©-  'AjtoAA^/  ■ 

tZlT    t7FtlT   UXOtVlV&t  Via)*,     ttp  $*  ?ov  zyxt 

VvpMs  yip  TTpeurov  i~{t)r.iTo,   Kj  Kwctq  etpyXc 

BccXX  ,  uiu  at  7rvp*i  pskvmv  tutiovro  S-cCfjuticti.  Iliad.  A, 

m  Morbos  turn  ad  iram  dcorum  immortalium  relatos  effe,  et 
jib  iifdem  opem  pofci  folitam,     Ce/fut  Prof. 

Ipfc 


(  7  ) 

Ipfe  Deus  memorat  dubias  per  tempora  Lunae 
Conceptum) 

The  Epilepjy,  I  fay,  was  looked  upon  as  a 
Sacred  Dijeaje,  and  was  fuppofed  to  have  its 
Origin  immediately  from  fome  or  other  of 
the  Gods,  according  as  its  Symptoms  were 
ftronger,  or  lefs  fo ;  and  thence  it  was  called 
Lues  deifica,  and  Morbus  facer. 

Hippocrates  has  treated  at  large  of  this  Dif- 
temper,  and  has  endeavoured  to  mew,  that 
there  was  nothing  in  it  that  n  peculiarly  impli- 
ed that  any  divine  Being  was  the  Cauje  of  it ; 
or  that  there  was  any  Thing  elfe  in  it  but  what 
was  natural  to  Man.  In  the  Introduction  to 
the  Treatife  upon  this  Difeafe,  he  tells  us 
what  it  was  that  induced  him  to  write  upon 
this  Subject :  viz.  That  there  were  a  Pack  of 
Empiricks  and  Quacks  and  f  rolling  Fellows, 
who  pretended  to  have  a  more  than  ordinary 
Regard  for  the  Gods,  and  who,  covering  their 
cwn  Ignorance  with  the  Veil  of  Deity,  decla- 
red this  Difeaje  to  proceed  from  That  as  the 
Caufe  ;  and  therefore  pretended  to  make  ufe  of 
Expiations,  Charms,  and  magick  Tricks  to 
cure  it.  The  divine  Old  man  could  not  bear 
the  Thought  of  fuch  Cheats  and  Impoftors ; 

n    Of*  y*r,KfTi  re  $uei  otiTw  kuta,  *lM#  t*  ei*8pcivrwot,     HippOC. 

de  Morbo  kcro. 


and 


(8) 

and  therefore  wrote  his  Book  to  (hew,  that 
really  and  in  the  Truth  of  Things,  Their 
■  Notions  ami  Practice  was  impious  and  wick- 
ed^ however  fpecious  it  might  Jeem,  or  full  of 
Honour  to  the  Gods :  nay,  though  they  pretended 
Jo  much  Piety  and  Regard  for  them,  yet  their 
very  Piety  was  Wickednefs,  and  even  Atheifm, 
He  then  proceeds  to  fhew  that  This  was  a 
mere  natural  Diforder,  and  to  be  refolved  into 
the  natural  Courfe  of.  Things,  as  other  Dif- 
tempers  were ;  and  that  it  ought  by  no  means 
to  be  imputed  to  any  Gods,  or  GoddeJJes,  or 
Heroes, 

Thofe  artful  Cheats,  who  made  fuch  Pre- 
tences purely  to  get  a  Lively  hood,  afcribed  to 
fome  God  or  other  this  Diftemper,  according 
as  the  Symptoms  were,  t  If  fay  they,  the 
di  (ordered  Perfons  imitate  a  Goat,  if  they 
grind  their  Teeth,  if  their  7'ight  Sides  are  con- 
vuljed,  then  The  Mother  of  the  Gods  is  the 
Cauje  of  the  Diforder.     If  the  Patient  Jpeaks 

°  'Eyjoiyz  «  xtpi  IvTioiiut,  obyJtHTi  Xoyw;  7roisii&ut,  aqciovrcti,  ctX^at, 
sr if i  d~vositiictc,  usc&hXov,  >c  cdq  01  $£ol  chc  iur{.  Ta  n  ivtriGts  *?  StTev 
avTav,  £crsc<s  vt  uvo<riov  ifiv.     Ibid. 

P  Aiytc  fJuiyjavTui,  kv,v  fipv%av^),  my  rot  o%%icc  <r7r&)vj>  Mqrtipi* 
Sicov  <pu(ri  uiTiyv  tlrtU'  H»  oe  oyjTtp6vy  k,  ivrovtinpov  (pBtyfiiTou,  MXm 
Hxuc^ovari,  x:  <pzci  Uotri^aiycc  eUTio*  aval,  w  di  k+  ty\c,  xottocv  Tt  xx- 
pi>j,  o  xohX-J.rAc,  tktI  ylvij  xzzo  t»55  yotrtt  {ZwfyfBpoia-iv,  *E»w5Va  irpatr- 
xnj  i>  TTpacruvounT)-  vy  Oi  teTrrorsptv  y^  TrvKvoncov  ciov  cpvidtq,  'AjtoA- 
>.uv  Nolo*©--  van  eft  u<t>co*  <v/.  X  ^cluccto^  ktoln.  x)  tovfi  7re<rt  AaxW&j. 
Apr.c,  tw  c4>Tiri*  t%a  Oko<tcc  at  dtifJt/ctTiz,  vvktoc,  TTctpis-c&j,  Xj  (pohoh 
Kj  7rupct*oiXi,  y^  ecvuTrr.Dvcrns  os/.  tv)c,  jcAjvhs,  k)  <pc£>jTpcf,  >£  (piufyic,  'i%a, 
'Ekxtk  <ptt<Tt>  wv«»  foifotifai  xj  'Hpuuv  tyooSx.     Ibid. 

JI:arper 


(  9  ) 

Jharper  and  jlronger  than  ordinary,  they  com- 
pare  him  to  a  Horfe,  and  fay  that  Neptune  is 
the  Caufe.  If  he  does  not  retain  his  Excre- 
ments, which  often  happens  to  thofe  who  are  vi- 
olently affcffed  with  this  Difeafe,  they  derive 
this  Cafe  from  Hecate  Enodia.  If  the  Party 
fpeaks  flirilly  and  quick,  as  Birds,  then  Apollo 
Nomius  is  the  Caufe  :  If  he  foams  at  his 
Mouth,  and  kicks  with  his  Feet,  Mars  is  the 
,Caufe.  And  indeed,  wherever  there  is  excefjive 
Dread  and  Fear  of  Night,  and  People  are  be- 
fide  themfelves,  and  jump  out  of  Bed,  and  are 
vehemently  terrified,  and  are  for  running  out 
of  Doors,  they  fay  thefe  are  Snares  which  He- 
cate lays  for  them,  and  that  the  Heroes  have 
taken  PofJ'efJion  of  them. 

But  though  Hippocrates  fpeaks  with  great 
Indignation  againft  thefe  Fellows,  who  made 
ufe  of  Charms  and  jugli?tg  ^Tricks  to  impofe 
on  People,  and  to  drive  out  thefe  Demons,  I 
find  Aretteus  fpeaks  more  mildly,  i  Some 
think,  fays  he,  that  this  Difeafe  comes  upon 
thofe  who  are  Sinners  againfl  The  Moon,  and 
therefore  they  call  it  The  Sacred  Difeafe.  Ci- 
thers think,  that  it  has  its  Name  from  other 
Pretences  -,  either  the  Greatnefs  of  the  Evil, 
for  whatever  is  great,  is  called  Sacred  ;  or  elfe 

ysKtv   izpw  x.ix.Xy}crx.%(ri  Tyi  rruCyv .     '  Atci$  y$  o\'   u)\>m$  xqcQctG-iac,-    >j 
jjjiyi6^  tS  KUKiSt   lean    *f>   to  fblycf   >j  ivi<rt'&J  C8"K  #vfyw/r;.js,  «AA<* 

C  becaufe 


(  io  ) 

becaufe  it  cannot  be  cured  by  Man,  but  by  fome 
divine  Power  ;  or  clfe,  becaufe  it  is  believed  that 
ibme  Demon  has  taken  Pojfejjion  of  the  Man. 

Now,  If  the  Mother  of  the  Gods,  if  Nep- 
tuney  Mars,  Apollo,  Hecate,  and  the  Heroes, 
were  Demons,  in  the  Senfe  of  the  Antients ; 
I.  e.  Souls  of  departed  Men  ;  if  the  pretended 
Authors  of  the  Epilepfy  were  Perfons  who 
once  had  lived  upon  Earth,  and  whom  the 
Heathen  World  had  foolifhly  or  ignorantly 
r  Deified  -,  if  Areta?us7s  faying  that  the  Epi- 
lepfy was  called  Sacred  by  fome,  from  a  Sup- 
poiition  that  a  Demon  had  entered,  and  taken 

PofTeflion  of,    the  difeafed  Perfon If  this 

be  a  good  Comment  to  explain  Hippocrates, 

■ We  have  a  plain  Reafon  why  Epileptic 

Perfons  fhould  be  called  Demoniacks.  For  if 
the  f  Souls  of  departed  Men  were  ufually  called 
Demons,  and  by  that  Word  was  meant,  Such 
Beings  as  were  no  more  t  mortal,  u  being 
translated  out  of  this  Life ;  and  if  Diftempers 
were  conceived  to  ipring  from  Theje  Beings, 

then  the  Perfons  who  had  fuch  Difeafes, 

might  very  properly  derive  a  Name  from  the 
iuppofed  Caufe  of  them,  and  be  ftiled  Demo- 

"  &ctiy,3nu  nV;  t>»  Ssol  tui  idvw.  Juft.  Mart.  c.  Trypho. 
pjio. 

'  ^v^cti  uxoQxioiTav.  Jufi.  Mart.  Apol.  2.  Toj  xxxbfv/ju  $ct*- 
y*o»tx  rrotJipa*  iV»»  wOpaxur  7?vw[Axtx.  Jofeph.  de  Bcllo  Jud.  I.  7. 
C.  23. 

1  Koricci  u9«tr»Tos,  B-tei  */U/£Jiot©",  cvx  i«  ^nTC?  Pyth.  Ail- 
re.i  Cirm. 

9  Mihsd  i^oi  gfjfr,    Proclus  in  Hcfiod. 

macks* 


(  ») 

macks.  We  fhall  meet  with  Inftances  here- 
after, of  Perfons  who  were  thus  named  from 
the  fuppofed  Caufe  of  their  Diftempers. 

It  is  not  the  Defign  of  this  Enquiry,  to 
enter  into  an  Examination,  whether  the  Souls 
of  departed  Men  (be  they  good  or  bad)  have 
any  real  Power  to  inflift  Difeafes  upon  us ;  or 
whether  they  are  in  Fa£l  appointed  as  Guards 
to  us ;  or  whether  they  can  do  us  either  good 
or  evil  Offices.  My  Bufinefs  is  only  to  confider 
what  the  Notions  of  the  Antients  were  :  and 
it  plainly  appears  that  they  imagined  (but  never 
proved,)  thefe  Demons  to  be  invilible  Beings,  en- 
dued with  fpiritual  Powers,  and  living  in  the  Air, 
and  attending  conftantly  upon  particular  Perfons, 
and  doing  them  much  Good  or  Evil.  w  'They 
infliB,  fays  Tertullian,  upon  Men's  Boc 
Difeafes ;  and  are  the  peculiar  Authors  of  Jbmt 
Sorts  of  very  grievous  Mifchances  ;  but  as  to 
the  Soul,  they  are  the  Authors  of  Mens  going 
fuddenly  and  extraordinarily  befides  them/elves. 
The  Subtlety  and  Finenefs  of  their  Make  ena- 
bles them  to  enter  into  both  the  Body  and  Soul  of 
Men.     By  Means  of  their  being  Spirits,  they 

w  Corporibus  quidem  et  vaiemdines  infiigunt,  et  aliquos  cafus 
acerbos;  animae  vero  repentinos  et*  extraordinarios  per  vim  cx- 
ceffus.  Suppetit  illis  ad  utramque  Subfb.ntiam  hominis  adeun- 
dam  fubtilitas  et  tenuitas  fua.  Mul mm  fpiritaKbus  viribus  licet 
ut  invifibiles  et  infenfibiles  in  efreclu  potias  «ju*m  in  acla  fuo 
appareant.    TertuI,  Jpolog.  c.  22, 

C  2  h&vt 


(  Mj> 

have  great  Powers,  Jo  that  they  can  a5li  though 
they  are  invifible  and  uncapable  of  being  felt ; 
and  you  mujl  judge  by  the  Effect  upon  Men, 
rather  than  by  their  Act,  which  is  i?tfcnjible. 

Having  now  a  clear  Account  of  what  was 
meant  by  Demons,  We  may  advance  a  Step 
further  in  our  Enquiry  ;   and  if  it  appears  to 
be  impoffible  to  be  proved,  that  Neptune,  or 
Mars,  or  Hecate,  &c.   have  fuch  Powers  as 
were  ufually  imputed  to  them ;  or  if  it  can 
be  proved,  that  many  of  the  Heathen  Deities 
to  whom  Diflempers  were  attributed,    were 
nothing   but   mere   imaginary   Beings,    who 
never   did    in   Fact    exifl    at    all)    then   it 
follows,    that  in  the  former  Cafe,    no   Evi- 
dence can   be  given,  that  thofe  Demons  to 
whom  a  Difeafe  was  imputed  were  really  the 
Caufe  of  it  5  and  in  the  latter  Cafe,  that  that 
Being  to  whom  the  Diflemper  was  attributedj 
was  abfolutely  not  the  Caufe.     In  both  Cafes, 
a  mere  Hypothefis  is  maintained ;  and  therefore 
if  we  meet  with  any  Diflemper  imputed  to 
Demons,  or  to  the  Gods,  among  the  Antients, 
we  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  examine  what 
fuch  Diflemper  is,  what  the  Symptoms  of  it 
were,  and  how  the  Perfons  under  it  were  af- 
fected ;    fince  we  know   that  whatever  was 
the  Caufe,  it  was  but  an  Hypothefis  that  2>- 
mons  were  the  Caufe  of  it.     And  if  we  find 
that  there  is  nothing  in  it  but  what  may  be 
the  Effect  of  mere  natural  Diforder  in  an  hu- 
man 


(   «3  ) 

man  Body,  it  is  abfurd  to  introduce  *  a  Deity 
into  the  Affair.     Thus,  e.  g. 

The  Epilep/y  was  imputed,  as  is  evident 
from  the  Citation  from  Hippocrates,  to  Ceresy 
or  Apollo,  or  Mars,  or  Neptune,  or  Hecatey 
&c.  Hippocrates  does  not  indeed  attempt  to 
prove  that  there  were  no  Jiich  Beings  as  thefe ; 
but  he  (hews  very  judicioufly,  that  in  that 
Diftemper,  there  was  nothing  but  what  might 
arife  from  natural  Caufes,  without  the  Inter- 
pofition  of  the  Gods.  And  fo  if  any  one 
were  now  to  confute  the  Notion  of  the  God 
Apollo 's  caufing  the  Epilepjy,  he  would  fhew 
with  Eafe,  that  Apollo  was  no  God ;  that  his 
pretended  Power  was  what  could  not  be  pro- 
ved •  and  confequently  that  He,  who  could 
not  be  proved  t/>  have  Power,  could  not  be 
proved  to  be  the  Cauje  of  fuch  or  fuch  Difor- 
ders.  For  though  any  one  fhould  contend  that 
the  Soul  of  Apollo,  &c.  didexijl  after  his  Death, 
yet  it  will  not  follow,  that  He  had  any  Power 
over  Mankind,  or  that  He  was  the  Caufe  of 
any  Diforder  Upon  Earth.  Call  therefore  the 
Epilepfy  the  Sacred  Difeafe,  or  the  Lues  dei- 
jica ;  yet  thefe  Names  imply  no  more  than 
the  Hypothecs  by  which  fome  attempted  to 
account  for  the  Diforder,  and  not  the  true  and 

x  'Q.<rs  f^vjKiri  to  BsTov  cciriov  uuoti,  oit&x  rl  oL'/fy&7nvovt     Hippo- 
srates  de  Morbo  facro. 

Nee  Deus  interfk,  niH  dignus  vindice  nodus.     Horat. 

proper 


(  M-) 

proper  Caufe  of  it,  which  was  no  more  than 
t!  cLvOpa-TTiw,  fomething  that  was  the  Effect  of 
mere  natural  Diforder  in  human  Bodies,  as 
Hippocrates  has  fhewn. 

If  from  the  Greeks  we  turn  to  the  Romans ,  we 
fhall  find  that  They  too  imputed  to  certain  Spi- 
rits certain  Diforders.  But  then  the  Names  of 
fuch  Diforders  only  implied  their  Philofophy,  or 
Hypothefis ;  not  the  true  Caufes  of  the  Diftem- 
pers  meant  by  thofe  Names,  e.  g.  Their  Cerri- 
ti  and  Larvati  had  certain  Diforders  which 
they  fuppojed  to  come  from  Ceres,  or  their 
Lares,  or  Larva.  But  yet  if  Ceres  could  not 
be  proved  to  be  the  Caufe ;  or  if  there  be  no 
Larva ;  or  if  there  be,  yet  that  they  have  no 
Power,  or  cannot  be  proved  to  have  any; 
we  may  be  fure  that  the  Name  implied  no 
more  than  their  Hypothefis,  and  not  the  true 
Caufe  of  the  Diftemper. 

But  fince  it  was  cuftomary  to  impute  cer- 
tain Diftempers  to  the  Gods  or  Demons,  it  will 
be  worth  while  to  examine  what  particular 
Dijeafes  thefe  were  -,  becaufe  it  is  poflible  that 
hence  we  may  gain  fome  Light  to  the  Subject 
we  are  enquiring  into.  The  Epilep/y,  as  we 
have  feen,  was  one  Cafe  which  was  deemed 
to  owe  its  Rife  to  Them.  The  Accounts  we 
have  of  the  Cerriti  and  Larvati  will  likewife 
help  us  to  another  Sort  of  Difeafe,  where 
the  Gods  were  deemed  concerned.  To  un- 
deiftund  their  Cafe,  we  need  only  to  confi- 

der 


(  *5  ) 

der  what  Plautus  has  faid  in  two  or  three 
Places. 

Mencechmus,  in  the  Comedy  fo  called,  pre- 
tends himfelf  to  be  difordered  in  his  Senies, 
and  falls  a  reaving  very  violently.  Upon  this, 
The  Old  man  goes  for  a  Phyfitian,  and  meet- 
ing with  him,  the  Phyfitian  afks  him, 

Quid  effet  illi  morbi  dixeras  ?  narra  Senex. 
Num  larvatus  aut  cerritus  ?  fac  fciam. 

Prefently  they  fee  Mencechmus  -,  and  the  Phy- 

Jitian  puts  certain  Queftions  to  him :  Upon 

which  the  Old  man  obferves  that  Mencechmus? 

begins  to  be  mad he  talks  like  one  befides 

himfelf ';  and  afks  the  Phyfitian,  why  he 
would  not  inftantly  prefcribe,  or  give  himjbme 
Potion,  before  he  was  fi ark  faring  mad.  The 
Phyfitian  then  afks  Mencechmus,  z  are  your 'Eyes 

wont  to  be  ftiff  or  hard  ? do  you  fleep  all 

Night?  can  you  fleep  lying  along?  Prefently 
after,  Mencechmus  begins  to  fcold  at  the  Old 

man-, Upon   which, a Don't  you  fey 

fays  the  Old  man,  that  the  Man  is  mad  ? 
And  the  Phyfitian b  tells  him, Til  make  you 

y  Occaeptat  infanire ddiramenta  loquitur. 

Quid  cefTas  dare  potionis  aliquid  priufquam  percipit  Infanta. 

*  Solent  tibi  unquam  oculi  duri  fieri? Unquam  inteftina 

tibi  ctspaat  ?  Perdormifciti   ufque  ad  lucem?    facilen*  tu 

dor ?nit  cubam. 

a  Non  vides  hominem  infanire  ? 

?  EUeborum  potabis  faxo  aliquos  viginti  dies, 

drink 


(   i6  ) 

drink  I  lellcbore  for  jo  we  twenty  Days.    Before 
this  Pbyfitian  was  called,   whilfl  the  Old  man 
and  his  Daughter  were  talking  of  Mencechmus, 
Hie  defcribes  him  thus,  cDont  you  fee  how  his 
Eyes  glare?   How  he  looks  yellow  about  his 
"Temples  and  Forehead  !  How  his  Eyes  jparkle  ! 
Here  then  we  have  the  Symptoms  and  Cafe 
of  a  Perfon  whom  the  Latins  call  Cerritus  or 
Larvatus ;  and  thefe  Effects  they  imputed  to 
Ceres,  or  to  the  Larvce,  which  they  imagined 
to  be  mifchievous  and  wicked  Spirits :  where- 
as in  Truth  the  diforder'd  Perfon  had  nothing 
elfe  but  fuch  a  Species  of  Madnefs,  as  had  the 
Symptoms   abovementioned,    and  which  the 
Phyfitian  propofed  to  cure  by  Hellebore. 

You  have  another  Inftance  of  the  like  Kind 
in  Plautus's  Amphitruo.  Amphitruo,  after  a 
long  Abfence,  comes  Home  to  his  Wife,  and 
Sofia  his  Servant  with  him.  "Jupiter  in  the 
mean  time  had  put  himfelf  in  the  exact 
Shape  of  Amphitruo,  and  had  lain  with  Ale* 
mena.  At  length,  Amphitruo  coming  Home 
to  his  Wife,  a  Difcourfe  arifes,  and  me  fays 
to  him,    d  Do  you  deny  that  you  went  from 

c  Viden'  tu  illi  oculos  virerc!  ut  viridis  colos 

Ex  temporibus  atquc  fronte  !  ut  oculi  fcintillant ! ■ 

Plant.  Menaecb.  Aft.  II.  Sc.  2,  4,  5, 
d  Ah     Tun'  te  abifle  hodie  hinc  nega.s  ? 
Am    Ntgo  enimvero,  et  me  advenire  nunc  primum  aio  ad 

(c  domum. 
Ah    Obfccro,  ctiamnc  hoc  ncgabis,  te  auream  pateram  mihi 

Dcdifle  dono  hodic,— — — - - 
Am.   Nctjuc  jedipol  dedi.  .       . 

hence 


(*7 


hence  this  Day  ?  Am.  I  do  deny  it,  and  fay  that 
this  is  the  very  Jirji  Injlant  that  I  came  to  you. 
Ale.  And  will  you  deny  that  you  gave  me  this 
very  Day  a  golden  Bowl?  Am.  No3  I  never 

gave  you  one. Alcmena  perfifting  in  what 

(he  faid,  Sofia  advifes  Amphitruo,  e  Pray  order 
her  to  be  luftrated,  as  (i.  e.  to  be  treated  as 
they  were  wont  to  treat)  a  Mad  woman. 
Amphitruo  replies,  Indeed  it  ought  to  be  do?ie, 
for  in  good  Truth  Jhe  is  full  of  the  Larvce. 
i.  e.  She  is  entirely  poffefTed  by  the  Larvae. 

It  may  not  perhaps  be  eafy  to  define  exactly 
the  Difference  betwixt  the  Cerriti  and  Larva- 
ti.  Plautus  treats  them  as  if  they  were  the 
fame,  unlefs  you  make  the  Cerritus  to  be  one 
that  is  more  mad,  and  more  wild,  than 
the  Larvatus ;  fo  much  more  fo,  as  to  be 
thought  Larvarum  plenus.  This  feems  to  be 
the  Cafe,  if  one  may  judge  from  another  Paf- 
fage  in  Plautus,  where  fome  Advocates  are  in- 
troduced, walking  fow  and  grave,  and  defend- 
ing themfelves  for  not  running  along  the  Streets, 
left  the  People  Jhould  throw  Stones  at  them  as 
Cerriti,  i.  e.  quite  mad. 

■Haud  quifquam  noftrum  currit  per  vias 


Neque  nos  populus  pro  cerritis  infeftabit  la- 
pidibus,  Pcen.  Aft.  III.  Sc.  i. 

-Quaefo  quin  tu  ifthanc  jubes 


Pro  cerrita  circumferri.     Am.  Quin  faflo  eft  opus ; 
Nam  haec  quidem  aedipol  larvarum  plena  eft. 

Plaut,  Amphitruo  Att.  II.  Sc.  2. 

D  But 


(  i8) 

But  to  return.  See  how  fome  Luftrations 
were  made  in  the f  Margin.  The  Ufe  of  thefe 
Paffages  in  Plautus  to  our  Purpofe  is,  that  this 
Sort  of  Madnefs,  whatever  was  the  Caufe,  was 
imputed  either  to  Ceres,  or  Spirits ;  and  the 
Diftemper  was  named  from  Them,  as  if 
They  were  the  proper  Caafes  of  it :  whereas 
in  Truth,  only  certain  Symptoms  could  be  re- 
ally expreffed  by  thofe  Terms,  fince  it  does 
not  appear  that  there  was  any  fuch  Perfon  ex- 
isting as  Ceres,  nor  any  fuch  Spectres  as  the 
Larva, 

Apuleius,  in  his  Book  De  deo  Socratis,  ex- 
plains what  the  ordinary  Notion  concerning 
thefe  Larva  was.  g  They  were  Spirits  or  Hu- 
man Souls,  who  on  Account  of  their  lll-deferts 
in  Life,  were  punijloed  as  it  were  by  a  Sort  of 
BaniJImient,  by  their  having  no  good  Place  of 
Aboad,  but  always  rambling  about,  vain  Ter- 
rors to  Good  men,  but  to  Evil  men  noxious. 
Where  therefore  People,  through  the  Force  of 
any  Diftemper,  were  under  fuch  violent  Fears 
and  Horrors  as  to  be  not  Mafters  of  their 
Reafon  at  all,  there  they  were  faid  to  be  Lar- 

•<riv,  (<viz.  Eggs  and  Brimflone,  £ff c . )  *}  rw  inu$w  tKilvlw  vzst- 
rabfitrctt,  Lucian.  Necuomant.  v.  Cafaubon  in  Theophraflum. 
p.   202. 

s  Propter  adverfa  Vitae  merita,  nullis  bonis  fedibus,  incerta 
vagatione,  feu  quodam  cxilio  punitur,  inane  Terriculamentum 
bonis  hominihus,  cacterum  malis  noxium,  hunc  plerique  Lar- 
va m    perh ibent.     Jpuleius  dc  Deo  Socratis. 

vati : 


C  19  J 

*uati:  where  it  came  to  Wildnefs,  and  incohe- 
rent Talk,  they  were  deemed  Cerriti,  Now, 
in  the  fame  Manner,  and  in  the  fame  Pro- 
priety of  Language,  as  diforder'd  Perfons 
among  the  Romans  were  called  Cerriti,  and 
Larvati,  though  their  Diforders  did  not  arife 
from  Ceres,  or  Larvce ,  Perfons  may  be  called 
Demoniacks,  though  Demons  are  not  the  Caufe 
of  their  Diftemper.  Who  ever  imagines  the 
Diforders  of  the  Cerriti  or  Larvati  to  be  ow- 
ing to  the  Mother  of  the  Gods,  or  to  Spec!  res  ? 
Or  when  they  are  faid  to  be  laruarum  pleniy 
that  therefore  they  had  Legions  of  Speclres  in 
them  ? 

There  were  likewife  a  Sort  of  Madmen, 
ftiled  by  the  Romans,  Lymphatici ;  by  the 
Greeks,  NvfupoAyiTrTcLi ,  as  there  were  thofe 
whom  Pliny  mentions  to  be  h  NoSturnis  Diis 
Faunifque  agitati  :  by  all  which  they  plainly 
meant  nothing  but  certain  Diftempers,  and 
to  which  certain  Medicines  were  applied. 
Had  they  conceived  real  Spirits  poffeffing 
fuch  miferable  Wretches,  how  abfard  would 
it  have  been  to  have  ordered  for  their  Cure 
1  Rhadijh  and  Eliebore  prepared  in  a  certain 
Way ;  or  k  Horfe-pifs,  and  the  Water  of  a 
Smith's  Forge ,  l  or  the  Tongue,  Eyes,  Gall, 

k  Pliny  Nat.  Hift.  lib.  xxv.  c.  5.       !  Ibid.  lib.  xxviii.  c.  16. 
k  Ibid.  lib.  xxix.  c.  4.         l  Ibid,  lib,  xxx.  c.  10. 

D  2  and 


(20) 

and  Inteftines  of  a  Dragon ;  or  m  the  Blood  of 
a  Mole ,  n  or  Diamonds ,  °  or  Amber  ?  Or  on 
the  contrary,  how  could  they  conceive  that 
the  drinking  the  Juice  of  a  certain  Herb, 
viz.  p  ^halajjegle,  could  caufe  Men  to  be 
pojfejfed  with  Demons  ?  Whatever  the  Word 
was  by  which  they  named  this  Diforder,  ( for 
this  was  a  Diforder  of  the  whole  Body,  as  ap- 
pears by  Pliny )  and  notwithftanding  the 
Name  might  imply  that  it  arofe  from  fome  in- 
vifible  Beings,  yet  fuch  a  particular  Species  of 
Diforder  is  the  only  thing  to  be  regarded  in 
thofe  Names. 

From  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  Let  us  next 
confider  the  fews.  Here  we  have  no  great 
Light  one  Way  or  other,  except  what  we 
can  derive  from  a  iingle  Inftance  in  the 
Old  Teftament,  and  from  a  very  few  Places 
in  Jojephus,  where  he  expreffly  mentions  De- 
moniacks.  The  only  Inftance  of  a  Diforder 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Teftament  as  arifing 
from  an  evil  Spirit ,  is  That  of  Saul :  and 
this  is  expreffly  imputed  to  an  evil  Spirit 
from  God,  i  Sam.  xvi.  14 — 16.  c.  xviii.  10. 
The  proper  Way  to  judge  of  this  Cafe  is,  to 

m  Plin.  Nat.  Hill.  lib.  xxx.  c.  10.  ft  Ibid.  lib.  xxxvii.  c.  4. 
0  Ibid.  lib.  xxxvii  c.  3. 

p  ThalafTeglen  circa  Indum  amnem  inveniri,  quae  ob  id  no- 
mine alio  Potamautis  appellator.  Hac  pota  Lympbari  homines, 
obverftntibiis  miraculis.  Ibid.  1.  xxiv.  c.  17.  Nails  taken  out  of 
a  Grave,  and  fixed  into  a  Threfhold,  were  good  againft  noftur- 
Ttas  Lympbat tones,  lib.  xxxiv.  c.  15. 

lay 


(    21    ) 

lay  together  the  Paffages  which  relate  to  Sauh 
and  from  them  to  fee  how  he  was  affedted. 
tfhe  Spirit  of  the  Lord  went  away  from  Saul, 
and  an  Evil  Spirit  from  the  Lord  troubled, 
or  terrified,  him.     And  Sauh  Servants  faid 

unto  him, an  Evil  Spirit  from  God  trou- 

bleth  thee.  Let  our  Lord  now  command  thy 
Servants to  Jeek  out  a  Man  who  is  a  cun- 
ning Player  on  an  Harp.  And  it  Jhall  come 
to  pafs,  when  the  evil  Spirit  from  God  is  upon 
thee,  and  he  Jhall  play  with  his  Hand,  and 
thou  Jhalt  be  well.  This  Advice  was  taken, 
and  David  was  thought  of,  and  brought  to 
the  King  ;  And  it  came  to  pafs,  when  the  Spi- 
rit of  God  was  in  [or  at  or  upon]  Saul,  David 
took  an  Harp,  and  played  with  his  Hand,  and 
Saul  was  refreshed,  and  was  well,  and  the 
Evil  Spirit  departed  from  him,  v.  23.  This 
is  the  firjl  Place  where  this  Diforder  is  menti- 
oned :  The  fecond  has  in  it  an  Account  of 
Sauh  Condud:  towards  David.  When  Goli- 
ah  was  flain,  and  the  Philijlines  routed,  The 
Women  came  out  with  Inftruments  of  Mufic 
to  meet  Saul,  and  as  they  played,  they  faid, 
Saul  hath  fain  his  thoufands,  and  David  his 
ten  thoufands.  And  Saul  was  very  wroth, 
and  the  Saying  difpleafcd  him,  and  he  faid, 
T^hey  have  afcribed  unto  David  ten  thouJa?ids, 
and  to  me  they  have  afcribed  but  thoufands  : 
and  what  can  he  have  more,  but  the  Kingdom  ? 

And  Saul  eyed  David  from  that  Day. And 

it 


(22) 

it  came  to  pafs  on  the  morrow,  that  the  Evil 
Spirit  from  God  came  apo?i  Saul,  and  he  pro- 
phefied  in  the  mid  ft  of  the  Houfe.  And  David 
played  with  his  Hand  as  at  other  'times.     And 

Saul  cafl  the  Javelin  at  David and  David 

avoided  out  of  his  Prefence  twice,  I  Sam.  xviii. 
j — 12.  and  c.  xix.  9,  10,  II. 

From  thefe  Places  thefe  Things  may  be 
obferved.  if,  That  we  have  no  Circumftan- 
ces  how  this  Evil  Spirit  affected  Saul,  ex- 
cepting only  that  he  was  troubled,  or  terrified 
very  much ;  and  that  he  prophefed  in  the 
midft  of  his  Houfe.  What  is  here  called 
Prophefying,  was  acting  as  a  mad  man,  act- 
ing as  the  Vates  or  Prophets  are  ufually  de- 
fcribed  by  the  Antients.  Said  was  not  infpi- 
red  as  the  true  Prophets  of  God  were  influ- 
enced, in  a  rational  Manner,  nor  indeed  at 
all  -,  bu^  as  appears  by  the  Hiftory,  his  Mind 
was  alienated,  and  his  Imagination  difturbed. 
This  was  the  ufual  Diforder,  either  real  or 
pretended,  of  the  Heathen  Prophets ;  who  are 
feldom  or  never  mentioned  as  prophefying, 
but  with  Circumftances  of  Rage,  and  Fury, 
and  Madnefs.  The  true  prophetical  Spirit  is 
rational  and  confident :  the  falfe  one  is  all  tu- 
multuous and  mad.  It  is  obfervable  therefore, 
that  the  Ckaldee  Paraphraf  fays  that  Saul  was 
mad,  or  acled  as  a  Mad  mail  in  his  Houfe  : 
and  it  is  probable,  that  from  fome  Similitude 

of 


(  23   ) 

of  Circumftances  that  carelefs  and  prophane 
Men  treated  the  beft  and  truefl  Prophets  as 
falfe  ones,  imputing  that  to  Phrenfy,  or  Me- 
lancholy, which  in  Truth  proceeded  from  a  di- 
vine Afflatus.  Hence  it  was,  that  when  Eli- 
Jha  fent  a  Prophet  to  anoint  Jehu,  Ahab's 
Servants  faid  to  Jehu,  Wherefore  came  this  mad 
Fellow  to  thee?  2  King.  ix.  11.  And  Jere- 
miah has  joined  together  the  Idea  of  Madnefi  to 
that  of  Prophecy,  c.  xxix.  26.  For  every  Man 
that  is  mad,  and  maketh  himfelf  a  Prophet. 

There  certainly  muft  be  fomething  in  the 
true  Prophet  common  to  him  with  the  falfe 
Prophet,  from  whence  this  Notion  mull:  arife, 
that  Madnefs  and  Prophefying  fhould  be  ufed 
by  very  good  Writers  as  fynonomous.  One 
cannot  but  obferve  that  Tully  has  ufed  the 
Words,  q  Vaticinari,  and  Infanire,  as  fignify- 
ing  much  the  fame  thing.  And  whenever  the 
Poets  fpeak  of  Prophets,  it  is  always  of  Per- 
fons  under  an  Alienation  of  Mind.  The  Si- 
byl  in  Virgil  is  deYcribed  as  under  violent 
r  Agitations,  and  foaming,  and  raging.     Lu- 

1  Eos  qui  dicerent,  dignitati  effe  ferviendum,  reip.  confu- 
lendum,  officii  rationem  in  omni  vita,  non  commodi,  effe  du- 
cendam,  fubeunda  pro  patria  perieula,  vulnera  excipienda, 
mortem  oppetendam;  <vaticinari  atque  infanire  dicebat.  Cic. 
Orat.  pro  Sextio. 

r   At  Phcebi  nondum  patiens,  immanis  in  antro 
Bacchatur  vates,  magnum  11  pectore  poffit 
Excuffiffe  Deum,  tanto  magis  il]e  fatigat 
Os  rabidum,  fera  corda  domans— — 

Virg.  JEneit.  6.  77—80. 

can 


(   24  ) 

can  in  the  fame  Manner  defcribes  a  Prieftefs 
as  filled  with  Fury,  f  her  Hair  ftanding  an 
End,  and  fhe  all  burning  within,  and  foam- 
ins;,  and  panting,  whilft  fhe  delivered  the 
Oracle.  And  Euripides  cbferves,  t  that  Mad  - 
nefs  has  a  good  deal  of  a  prophetick  Faculty 
in  it :  and  that  Mad  men  could  foretell  fu- 
ture Things.  It  is  probable  that  this  Notion 
arofe  from  hence,  that  when  the  true  Prophet 
received  the  divine  Influx,  his  Senfes  were 
as  it  were  thrown  ajleep^  and  ceafed  \  and  his 
Mind  fo  taken  up,  that  he  attended  to  no- 
thing elfe  but  what  was  revealed.  Thus  u  A- 
barbenel  fays  from  Maimonides,  and  proba- 
bly very  juftly.  Hence  came  falfe  Prophets 
to  affedt  a  like  Abfence  of  their  Faculties : 
and  as  this  was  common  amongft  fuch  as 
were  mad  with  a  w  divine  Influx,  or  Infpira- 
tion,  hence  Perfons,  who  by  Reafon  of  a  na~ 

f  Bacchatur  demens  aliena  per  antrum 
Colla  ferens,  vittafque  Dei,  Phcebeaque  ferta 
Eredtis  difcuiTa  comis 


>Magnoque  exasftuat  igne. 


Spumea  tunc  primum  rabies  vefana  per  ora 
Effluit,  et  gemitus,  et  anhelo  clara  meatu, 

Murmura. ■ Lucan.  Lib-  5. 

1    To  ihftnashc,  ujcivtulw  7rc\Xv,v  \y,w 
Orxv  *f»  0  irtoq  u$  to  <ra>[/j  sAc'/f  7roXv$ 
Atytiv  ro  ujt^Xov  thc,  yjipwoTxc,  xoiii.       Eurip.  Bacch. 
u  A  tempore  Prophetia?,  Facultates  Prophetae  funt  obfopitae, 
fenfus  ejus  cefiant,  et  anima  occupata  eft  in  apprehenfione  fua, 
indicatquc  hominibus  quid  viderit,  vel  audiverit,  fine  ulia  ope- 
ratione  voluntatis  et  arbitrii  ejus  proprii  circa  id  quod  videt  vel 
propherat.     Vid.  Lib.  Cozri.  p.  413. 
w  Ota  TTYcetTiriv  t[*[AccviK.     Eurip.  Bacch,. 

tural 


(  25  ) 

tural  Diforder,  Phrenfy,  Melancholy,  &c. 
were  alienated  in  their  Minds,  were  faid  to 
prophejy.  It  will  appear  prefently  what  Saul's 
Diftemper  was ;  and  this  Circumftance  of  his 
Prophejying,  or  acting  as  a  mad  Man,  will  be 
a  considerable  Argument  in  Point.  I  obferve 
2dly,  The  Cure  of  him  was  by  a  known  Me- 
thod.    Let  thy  Servants  Jeek  out  a  cunning 

Player    on    a    Harp And  he  Jhall  play 

with  his  Hand,  and  thou  foalt  be  well.  ^dly, 
The  Cure  was  to  be  effected,  and  it  was  con- 
stantly effected,  by  Mufick  and  by  That  alone, 
Had  it  been  to  be  cured  by  Prayer,  or  any 
thing  that  was  devotional,  Saul's  Servants 
would  have  defired  a  Prophet,  or  a  Priejl,  not 
a  Mufician,  to  be  fent  for.  Ajhly,  When  Da- 
vid played  upon  the  Harp,  Saul  was  refrefh- 
ed,  and  was  well,  and  the  Evil  Spirit  depart- 
ed from  him.  When  therefore  the  Evil  Spi- 
rit was  upon  him,  Saul  was  in  a  State  oppofite 
to  what  is  here  called  Refre/hment,  and  being 
well.  Now  the  original  Word  x  fignifies  to 
Breathe,  or  draw  one's  Breath  comfortably  and 
well.  The  Septuagint  tranflate  the  Verfe 
thus,  i  Sam.  xvi.  14,  An  Evil  Spirit  from 
the  Lord  1  fuffocated  him  :  And  when  David 
played,  he  refreJJjed  him.     And  Jofephus  tells 

*  fin  refpirare%  relaxation  ejfe,  Motum  <vel  agitationem  in- 
chdit,  fays  Mercer. 
y  'Effuyi*  uvtov. 

E  us, 


(    26    ) 

us,  *  that  grievous  Diforders  proceeding  from 
Demons,  attended  Saul,  which  often  were  rea- 
dy to  fuffocate  and  ftrangle  him,  Jo  that  the 
Phyjitians  could  think  of  no  other  Cure  for  him 
but  this,  that  when  the  Demons  came  to  him 
and  disturbed  him,  One  JJjould  ft  and  at  his 
Head  and  Jing.  $thly,  When  the  Evil  Spirit 
was  upon  Saul,  i.  e.  when  he  was  in  the  Dif- 
order  which  thus  affected  him ;  when  in  Jo- 
/ephus's  Language,  a  the  Demon  dijlurbed 
and  troubled  him,  it  was  then  that  Saul  at- 
tempted to  kill  David.  The  Women  with 
their  Songs  had  made  Saul  look  upon  David 
with  an  Evil  Eye ;  they  had  raifed  his b  Envy 
and  Hatred  \  and  thefe  Paffions,  joined  to  the 
Diftemper  he  had,  made  him  mifchievous, 
and  twice  ftrive  to  murder  David  with  his 
own  Hand,  kthly,  From  the  Cure  propofed, 
it  is  evident  that  this  Evil  Spirit  from  the 
Lord  was  feme  natural  Diftemper.  For  what 
Relation  has  the  Sound  of  a  Harp  to  the  Ex- 
pulfwn  of  Spirits  ?  What  makes  them  fo  much 
afraid  of  Mufick  as  to  leave  the  Body  they  had 

rpx>y}eiAec$  i77i(piyovTct. artiTcc*  xura>  frcoa-i))  rx  dxiyjcmx  x^  rx~ 

pctrloh  7ron7v  vzTig  xiCpxXw  irxvTx  •tyU/&uv.  Antiq.  Jud.  Lib.  6. 
c  '  10. 

a  To  oui/jjoviov  IQoqijZh  fC,  cwJiTclpxrli.     Ibid.  c.   14. 

b  <&6cvov  iCj  (M'trO^.     Ibid.  c.    11* 

And  when  Jonathan  interceded  with  Saul  for  Da<vidy  2oi  5ra- 
MpS  ttviu^jcctoc,  x^  t  oUtfjmun  iyxxQifyftivuv  tcc  jap  i^icxtev.  Ibid. 
Lib    6.  c.  13. 

poffefTed, 


(27) 

pofleiTed,  upon  hearing  the  Sound  of  Harmo- 
ny ?  Or  why  do  they  fly  from  exafl  and  good 
Mufick,  more  than  from  inharmonious  jar- 
ring Difcords?  For  from  the  Hiftory  it  ap- 
pears that  a  Jkilful  Mufitian  was  required  to 
cure  the  King's  Diforder.  From  whence  I 
cannot  but  infer,  ythly,  That  we  are  not  to 
be  influenced  by  the  mere  Words,  an  Evil 
Spirit,  to  imagine  that  fome  wicked  Being 
entered  Saul's  Body,  and  caufed  thofe  grie- 
vous Diforder s  which  he  laboured  under,  any 
more  than  we  can  infer  in  the  Inftances  of  the 
Cerriti  and  Larvati  before  mentioned,  that 
they  were  under  the  Influence  of  Ceres  or  the 
Larvce.  Sthly,  From  the  Circumftances ,  of 
Saul's  Cafe,  viz.  being  terrified  much ;  being 
refrejhed  by  Mufick,  and  thence  growing  well-y 
from  the  Diforder s  being  not  perpetual  upon 
him,  but  returning  at  Times ;  and  if  we  take 
in  from  the  LXX  and  Jofephus,  his  being  rea- 
dy to  be  fir  angled  or  juffocated, From 

thefe  Circumftances,  I  fay,  his  Cafb  feems  to 
be  nothing  but  deep  Melancholy,  It  is  one  of 
Hippocrates  s  Aphorifms,  c  where  Fear  or  Sad- 
nefs  conti?iue  long,  it  is  a  Sign  of  Melancho- 
ly. And,  The  Returns  of  this  Diftemper  are 
ufual d  in  Spring  and  Autumn.     The  Symp- 

d  T»  (Av  vpos  ret  f/jomxot  ?£  rk  fX*Xcty%Q\'.KZ,-~ — — Ta  di  (pQiyox&piS 
*— — ^  roc  (Aetvixa  ^  t«s (Aihi •.■y^oAix.aj,      HippjC  ..oris. 

E    2  - 


(  28  ) 

toms  of  it  are,    as  Sydenham  well  obferves, 

thefe They  yield  them/elves  up  a  Prey  to 

Anger,    Jealoufy,    Sufpicion,    &c. Now 

they  love  one  to  Excefs,  and  injiantly  they  hate 
the  fame  Perfon  as  immoderately.  They  refolve 
in  one  Inftarit  to  execute  fome  Defign,  and  in 
the  next,  they  make  another  and  perhaps 
contrary  Refoltition.  It  fometimes  produces 
dreadful  Convulfions,  refembling  the  Epilepfy, 
the  Belly  and  Entrails  fwelling  upwards  to- 
wards the  Throat,  &c.  Let  me  add  in  the 
Laft  Place,  that  the  Antients  were  wont  to 
apply  Mufick  to  the  Cure  of  Diftempers,  and 
in  particular  thought  it  an  excellent  Remedy 
againft  this  very  Diforder.  Theophraftus,  in 
his  Book  of  Enthu/iajm,  tells  us,  that e  Mufick 
cures  many  Diforder s  of  both  Soul  and  Body, 
e.  g.  Paintings,  Fears,  long  continued 
Dijbrders  of  Mind.  The  Playing  upon  the 
Pipe  cures  the  Sciatica,  and  Epilepfy.  And 
Mariianus  Cape/la  has  a  great  deal  to  this 
Purpofe  in  his  gth  Book :  where  he  introduces 
Mufick  as  faying  what  fhe  had  done,  f  I  have 

cured 

Xrff<rUv.     Theophraitus  apud  Apollonium.  c.  48. 

F  Pcrturbationibus  animorum,  corporeifque  morbis,  medica- 
bi!e  crebvius  carmen  infonui.     Nam  Pbreneticos  Symphonia  cu- 

ravi. ■ — Febrem  curabant  vulncraque  vereres  cantione.     Af- 

det  item  Tuba  furdijjimis  medebatur.     Ad  affettiores  animi 

tibias 


(    29    ) 

cured  Madmen  by  Symphony, The  Anti- 

ents  cured  the  Fever  and  Wounds  by  fnging. 
Afclepiades  cured  the  very  deafeji  by  a  trum- 
pet, and  madmen  by  Symphony.  Theo- 
phraftus  applied  Pipes  to  the  AffeStions  of  the 

Mind. Xenocrates  freed  thcje  that  were 

troubled  with  Spirits  by  injirumental  Muficky 
&c. 

Saul's  Evil  Spirit  then  does  not  fignify  the 
real  proper  Caufe  of  his  Diforder,  fince  it  ap- 
pears that  his  was  nothing  elfe  but  natural  Me- 
lancholy, which  foft  Accents  and  melodious 
Sounds  were  wont  conftantly  and  regularly  to 
afTwage.  What  Connection  is  there  betwixt 
the  Sound  of  a  mufical  Inftrument,  and  De- 
vils or  Evil  Spirits  ?  How  could  thofe  about 
Saul  think  of  Mufck,  to  expel  a  Spirit? 
Whereas  fuppoling  his  Diftemper  the  Effect 
of  Matter  and  Motion,  and  like  other  Dis- 
tempers y  it  was  natural  to  have  Recourfe  to 
the  then  ufual  Means  of  curing  them,  and 
accordingly  they  fucceeded.  For  can  any 
thing  be  more  natural  than  to  procure  zjkilful 
Mufti  an  to  divert  Melancholy  ?  And  will  not 
fuch  a  one  always  comfort  and  refrefh  the  Pa- 
tient, and  make  him  well?   The  LXX  and 

tibias  'Theophraftus  adhibebat. Xenocrates  arganicis  moduli* 

lympbaticos  liberabat.     Martia.  Capella.  Lib.  9. 

C en/or  inus  fays,  Afclepiades  medicus  phreneticorum  mentes, 
morbo  turbatas,  fepe  per  Symphoniam  fuae  naturae  reddidit. 
C.  12.  de  die  natali. 


jojepvus 


(  30  ) 

Jofphus  have  added  Circumftances  which  are 
very  common  in  Hypocondriacal  Cafes,  I 
mean  his  being  fuffocated  when  the  Evil  Spirit 
was  upon  him.  And  this  may  help  us  to 
conceive  what  really  was  his  Cafe,  and  what 
exactly  anfwers  in  every  Circumftance.  For 
though  they  all  agree  in  the  Word  Spirit, 
yet  ftill  the  Thing  was  no  more  than  natural 
Dijbrder.  Accordingly  Maimonides  obferves, 
that  the  Jews  *  call  every  Sort  of  Melancholy 
an  Evil  Spirit :  and  explains  Evil  Spirit,  by 
Dijeafe. 

We  meet  with  nothing  of  Demo?iiacks 
excepting  the  Cafe  of  Said,  in  the  Old  Tef- 
tament.  But  yet  Jofephus,  ( who  profeiTes  a 
ftricT:  Regard  to  the  Sacred  Writings,)  menti- 
ons certain  Charms  which  Solomon  left  behind 
him,  by  which  they  could  h  cure  Difeafes,  and 
fo  expel  Demons,  that  they  Jhould  no  more  re- 
turn :  and  this  Manner  of  Cure,  fays  he,  con- 
tifiues  amongjl  us  even  to  this  Day.  Upon  this 
he  relates  a  remarkable  Story  upon  his  own 
Knowledge,  of  one  Eleazar's  carting  out  De- 
mons in  the  Prejence  of  Vefpafian,  and  his 
Sons,  and  OJfcers,  and  Abundance  of  Soldiers. 

g  Rambanus.  Omnc  genus  Melancholia;  'vacant  Spiritum  ma- 
lum. Atque  alibi;  Spiritus  Malus,  i.  e.  Morbus.  Lightfoot 
Her.  Iicb.  in  Luc.  c.  13.  11. 


f^KiTl  tVfiWf  Ads**   ix-huKXTi, 


The. 


(  3*  ) 

The  Story,  and  the  Manner  of  Cure,  was 
thus.  '  Applying  a  Ring  having  a  certain 
Root  under  the  Seal  \  viz.  one  of  thofe  Roots 
that  Solomon  taught  the  Virtues  of,  He  drew 
out  the  Demon  through  the  Nofe  of  him  that 
fmelt  it :  and  prefently  the  Man  falling  down, 
he  mentioning  Solomon,  and  reciting  the 
Charms  "which  he  had  invented,  adjured  the  De- 
mon never  to  return  into  him.  Eleazar  being 
willing  to  fatisfy  the  By-flanders  that  he  had 
this  Rower,  he  placed  a  little  Way  from  them 
a  Cup  full  of  Water,  or  a  little  Veffel  that 
they  wajhed  their  Feet  in  :  and  then  he  com- 
manded the  Demon  as  he  went  out  of  the 
Man  to  overturn  that  Veffel,  and  thus  make 
the  Speculators  fenfble,  that  he  had  left  the 
Man.  This  is  the  Account  of  a  Demoniack 
in  Jofephusys>  Days,  difpoffeffed  by  this  Elea- 
zar. The  Root  which  did  this  wondrous 
Feat,  is  that,  I  fuppofe,  which  he  mentions 
in  the  Seventh  Book  of  the  Jewi/h  Wars,  the 
Story  of  which  is  flill  more  ridiculous  than 
the  Account  of  pulling  out  the  Demon  through 
the  Noje    of    the  Perfon  that   was  pofTefTed. 

*  T!po<r<pipci>v   touc,  p'ttn  t5  Jkitbovi^opfytz  ret  dbcKroXiov]  s%ovt66  Vzso 

tvJ  <r<ppc&yidi  pii^ccv 's/thtx  i|s?Xx£»  octppxivoffya)  2dJ.   rZv  fAVfcrt)- 

fuv  to  di/Af/joviov.  £■  7ri<ro'>T,&'  iu$'j$  tS  ccvfyo)?7%  fJt/VK&r'  zle,  ecurev  *V#- 
haQsiv  a^Kis. fizki  {/J/.®*  £&  7Tii<rui on  tuvtw  t?CSi  TW  l%vv> 

*    (a  \       >/  (\  '  »  ■•  •'  Jv       /t=\  >  tv  \         " 

STiVU   f/jtXfOV    Sf/jTTpO&iV    TTOTyMOV    TT/WipiC,    Oi4.T^>>,      *i    77  odo'J  iTTT  GOV ,      3C,     T J* 

oxiiAovici)  TrpotTiTurliv  t£icvn  t«  u,na»7FH  ruur  ccvctrciyett,  ttj  wc.pot,%uv 
ixiyvwxi  to7$  opZxiv,  on  KXTscAi}.6i7n  tov  stvOpcMFw.  Jofeph.  Antiq. 
Lib.  8.  c.  2. 

However 


(32    ) 

However  I'll  relate  it  fince  it  concerns  De- 
mom.     "  k  There  is  a  Valley  on  the  North  of 
"  Macharus,  in  which  is  a  Place  called  Baa- 
ras,  which  bears  a  Root  of  the  fame  Name ; 
It  is  of  a  flame  Colour,  and  about  Evening 
time  it  mines  very  bright.     It  is  not  eafily 
caught  by  them  that  would  willingly  ga- 
ther it ;   but  it  withdraws  itfelf,  and  does 
not  flay,  unlefs  one  pours  the  Urine  of  a  Wo- 
man, or  menftruous  Blood  upon  it.     And 
"  even  then  it  is  certain  Death  to  them  that 
<c  touch  it,  unlefs  you  happen  to  carry  the 
u  Root  itfelf  hanging  down  from  your  Hand, 
"  There  is  another  Way  of  getting  this  Root 
<c  free  from  Danger,    and  it  is  this.     They 
"  dig  quite  round  it,  fo  that  the  very  leaft 
"  bit  of  the  Root  is  left   in    the  Ground : 
<c  then  they  tye  a  Dog  to  it,  and  the  Dog  at- 

k  Bxctfxq  ovofJUoc^ij  ti$  to~oc,  QCu  rt  o'.^xy   coiwjf/jaz  teyopfyw 
uvru.    ccvrii  (phoy)  fy  tw   X^**    '£0WC£-   **f*  °*  Tof?  i<r7rifx<;  (rixx$ 

icTTX^^UT.THQrx.     TOIC,    W     £T(».CT*    >£    fia>.0(VjjOi<,    A««S?»    UVTr,V,      G&K    WXt 

jy^s/po'T©0,    aXb.'  l~c?i'jyu,   k.  hi   XfOTipov  l'<?xj   Kfit   xv   rn;  £pe?  yv- 
rxiKG$,   It  To    t/jjfAr,vcy  tUiMe  x%'^  KiiT'   &v~n<i-      Ov  (&??,   xf^x  x}  tots 

irtnyMtw^  to  qiZ.x*  c-'x  tjjs  %h$0<>  uxmrriivfiW'  oc^ckitoh  at  x.a6' 

STi^GV   TpJ/TO*     UKUOlllUZ.    CC.    Ifl    TOiCtTOi.   %'JY.X'jO  XXTXV     XOTW   <ZSC<CfV  OS  %  * 

at,  ac  utelt  to  nftnrrefOp0>  riJs  p'-C^S  ^ox^txtoi  .  sit'  \\  xI>tyi<,   krjj^- 
trt  kvvx%  juutMV  ru  crvuvTi  trweuc&xdtvt  cptAV}rxvT&,  %u*a  i«wsr3- 

J  puOi'ac,.    B-fKCKH    o'  ioti-jc,    6  ki>u¥,     a<T77tc   avTi£ohi<i   ii    ^C/jAAovt^ 

TVJ    fioTcl-ro     XVXtpCXC^.    (pCeO"    yxa  &OUC,   Tt"(e,   L/Qj}     TXVTX    AxU.<sU1!S- 

<r<y.      *Eci  6i  «?  tccztcjv  xivgjv&'j  StJa.  u>ix*  <V«f,   <5j&«r77i£cx$(&'.  to. 

K  '  ~  ?\  -         >   "<  •      A       ' 

yXP  XX?.XfOf.X  CXlf/jCViX,    TOCJTX    Oi     ~OVtyUV    ffi*     eCVV^&'TTUV     XViVf/jXTX, 

rei<i  "Cpxr.v  i,'<rci;ofty-x  to  kthvovtx  tx$   fio.'fiuac,  fju*  TvyftxnovTus,  xv- 

T1)     TV  UL7Ciy     KXV    X  OOC  Mi%ft    [Jt/CVOt     T0?5     fWSCi,        JoieD.      dc 

Bell.  Judaic,  Lib.  7.  c.  23. 

*(  tempting 


CC 
U 
M 

<c 
u 


(  33  ) 

tempting  to  follow  him  that  tied  him,  the 
Root  is  eafily  pulled  up.  But  then  the 
Dog  dies  inftantly,  as  it  were  in  the  Stead 
of  him  who  would  get  the  Plant. l  There 
"  is  no  Fear  to  them  who  fhall  afterwards 
"take  it.  This  Root  is  very  defireable  for 
one  Virtue  it  has,  notwithftanding  fo  many 
Dangers  in  getting  it.  For  Demons  as 
they  are  called,  (thefe  are  the  Spirits  of 
wicked  Men)  entering  into  the  Living,  and 
killing  thofe  that  have  no  Help,  this  Root 
prefently  expels  them,  even  though  it  be 
only  brought  near  thofe  that  are  ill.'* 
How  ridiculous  foever  thefe  Stories  are> 
both  that  of  Eleazar,  and  this  of  the  Hoot 
BaaraSy  yet  Jofephus  plainly  thought  that 
there  were  properly  Demoniacks,  or  Perfons 
into  whom  the  Souls  of  wicked  Men  entered. 
He  gives  us  no  Symptoms  of  the  Diforders 
thefe  Men  had :  but  only  that  they  were  kil- 
led if  they  had  not  Help,  and  that  Eleazar 
pulled  out  the  Demon  through  the  Nofe  of  the 
Perfon  to  whom  he  applied  this  Root.  I  can- 
not but  think  Jofephus  $  Demoniack  to  be  the 
fame  with  the  Cerritus  of  Serenus  Samonicus, 
whom  m  dreadful  Smells  would  often  cure. 
Serenus  is  fpeaking  of  a  Cafe  where  through 

1  So  the  Cynocephale,  or  Ofyritis  in  Egypt,  is  prefent  Death 
to  Kim  that  pulls  it  up,  and  is  excellent  good  againft  all  Witch- 
craft.    Plin.  lib   xxx.  c.  2. 

f1  Cerritum  fepe  horrendi  medicantur  Odores.     Seren.  Samon. 

F  forne 


(  34  ) 

*fome  Fault  of  the  Brain  a  raving  Madnefs  arofe : 
and  as  the  Cerriti  were  Mad  men,  and  cured 
by  Jlrong  Smells,  juft  as  fofephuss,  Demoni- 
acks,  it  is  very  probable  they  were  both  under 
the  fame  Sort  of  Diforders.  It  will  always  be 
afked,  How  Jofephus  knew,  that  thefe  Per- 
fons  had  in  them  the  Souls  of  wicked  Men 
deceafed  ?  How  he  knew  that  thefe  wicked 
Spirits  killed  Men  ?  What  has  the  Smell  of  a 
Root  to  do  with  wicked  Spirits  ?  Or  how  can 
that  expel  them  ?  To  fay,  that  he  Jaw  the  Fac7 
done  5  and  to  add  that  he  faw  the  Demon  over- 
turn a  Bafon  of  Water,  at  his  going  out  of  a 
Man,  is  only  affirming  one  incredible  Thing 
in  order  to  prove  another.  For  what  Evi- 
dence is  there  that  this  was  done  by  a  De- 
mon ?  It  is  agreed  that  the  Philofophers  of 
Old  talked  much  of  thefe  Spirits,  or  Demons ; 
but  how  did  they  know  that  thefe  Demons 
were  the  Spirits  of  Evil  Men  ?  He  might  fay 
perhaps,  becaufe  the  Perfon  that  was  difor- 
dered,  was  agitated,  and  thrown  down,  and 
fujfered  much  Mi/chief  But  thefe  Effects 
might  have  nothing  more  in  them  than  what 
was  natural  and  ordinary,  as  I  have  already 
(hewn.  Leaving  therefore  thefe  Inftances  of 
JewiJJj  Exorci/ls,  and  the  Charms  which  So- 
lomon is  faid  to  have  left,  Thofe  idle  romantick 
Tales  of  jofephus,  which  mew  how  eafily  he 


n   Ex  vitio  Cerebri  Phrenejis  furiofa  movetur 
Amiflaiquc  refer t  f widen  amentia  vires. 


was 


(35  ) 

was  impofed  on  himfelf,  or  how  ready  he  was 
to  impofe  on  others  -, 

I  proceed  in  the  next  Place  to  confi- 
der  what  the  New  Tejlament  Writers  have 
faid  upon  the  Subjedt  of  Demoniacks. 
And  in  order  to  mew  what  was  meant,  we 
muft  compare  the  feveral  Relations  together ; 
and  when  we  meet  with  plain  and  eafy  Ac- 
counts of  things,  we  muft  make  them  the 
Standards  or  Tefts  by  which  we  ought  to  un- 
derftand  the  more  difficult  Places ;  and  not 
vice  verfa,  interpret  eafy  Texts  by  thofe  which 
are  intricate  and  hard.  It  muft  be  remem- 
bered likewife,  that  Demon  in  none  of  the 
Inftances  already  produced,  fignifies  what  we 
in  Englijh  call  Devil,  but  always  is  applied 
to  °  the  departed  Souls  of  Dead  Men.  And 
laftly,  that  Epilepfy  and  Madnefs  were  pecu- 
liar Diforders  attributed  to  the  Gods. 

Thefe  Things  being  already  proved,  it  is 
neceflary  to  obferve,  that  when  out  Saviour 
began  to  preach,  he  went  about  all  Galilee, 
preaching  the  Gofpel  of  the  Kingdom,  and  heal- 
ing all  Manner  of  Sickne/s,  and  all  Manner  of 
Difeafe  among  the  People,  and  his  FAME 
went  throughout  Syria  -y  and  there  followed  him 
great  Multitudes  of  People  from  Galilee,  and 
from    Decapolis,    and  from  Jerufalem,    and 

l*wr*>».    Juft.  Mart.  2  Apol. 

F  z  from 


(36) 

from  Judea,  and  from  beyond  Jordan,  Matt.  iv» 
23 — 25.  From  hence  it  appears  that  He  was 
much  known  ;  and  that  the  Doctrines  he 
preached  were  likewife  known ;  and  what  he 
was  imagined  to  be,  was  well  known  in  all 
thofe  Parts.  This  was  fo  notorious,  that  they 
brought  unto  him  all  fick  People  that  were  ta- 
ken with  divers  Difeafes  and  Torments ;  and 
thofe  which  were  poffeffed  with  Devils  [De- 
mons] and  thofe  which  were  Lunatic,  and  thoje 
which  had  the  Palfy.  Perhaps  this  might  bet- 
ter be  tranflated,  even  thofe  who  were  pof 
Je/fed,  &c.  for  thefe  are  the  particular  and 
eminent  Inftances  of  Perfons  who  had  Difea- 
fes and  Torments.  What  thefe  Perfons  pofjeffed 
with  Devils  [or  Demons]  were,  is  now  to  be 
confidered. 

St.  John,  c.  x.  20,  gives  us  an  Account 
of  a  Controverfy  amongft  the  Jews  on  Occa- 
fion  of  fome  Things  which  our  Saviour  had 
faid.  In  this  Debate,  many  J  aid  he  hath  a 
Devil,  and  is  mad.  Others  Jdid,  thefe  are  not 
the  Words  of  him  that  hath  a  Devil :  can  a 
Devil  open  the  Eyes  of  the  blind  f  Madnefs  is 
here  imputed  to  our  Saviour  -,  and  the  imagi- 
nary Caufe  is,  he  hath  a  Devil.  Thefe  were 
fo  connected  together  in  their  Minds,  that 
Both  Sides  reafoned  in  the  fame  Manner  :  and 
both  Sides  took  for  granted  that  That  particular 
Diforder  proceeded  from  fome  Evil  Spirit 
that    pofleffed    him,     They    therefore    that 

thought 


(37) 

thought  he  fpoke  the  Words  of  Sobriety,  re- 
plied, can  he  that  is  under  the  Influence  of  a 
wicked  Spirit,  i.  e.  a  Mad  man,  either  fay  or 
do  fuch  Things  as  this  Man  does  ? 

It  is  exactly  in  the  fame  Senfe  that  the 
Jews  anfwered  our  Saviour,  John  vii.  20, 
when  he  charged  them  with  going  about  to 
kill  him,- — — They  faid,  Thou  haft  a  Devil. 

The  Meaning  of   which  was Thou  art 

mad,  who  goeth  about  to  kill  thee  ?  He  charged 
them  with  an  AQ.  which  they  difclaimed ;  and 
they  immediately  replied,  that  he  had  a  De- 
vil; ufmg  the  Caufe,  the  imaginary  Caufe,  for 
a  vifible  Effecft,  which  they  conceived  natural- 
ly to  flow  from  it. 

Again  ;  when  John  came  neither  eating  nor 
drinking,  they  fay,  He  hath  a  Devil,  Matt,  xi, 
18.  i.  e.  When  he  appeared  in  that  auftere  ri- 
gid Manner,  living  in  the  Wildernefs,  and 
preaching  ftridt  Repentance  as  he  did,  and  u- 
iing  fevere  Mortification,  they  looked  upon 
him  to  be  mad.     To  name  one  Inflance  more. 

Our  Saviour  having  told  the  Jews,  John 
viii.  48 — 52,  that  they  were  not  of  God,  they 
faid  unto  him,  Say  we  not  well  that  thou  art 
a  Samaritan,  and  haft  a  Devil  ?  Jefus  anfwer- 
ed, I  have  not  a  Devil,  but  I  honour  my  Fa- 
ther,  If  a  Man  keep  my  Saying,  he  fhall 

never  fee  Death.  Then  faid  the  Jews  unto  him, 
now  we  know,  that  thou  haft  a  Devil.  Abra- 
ham is  dead,  and  the  Prophets,  and  thou  fayefl, 


CI 


(  38) 

If  a  Man  keep  my  Saying,  he  Jhall  never  taji 
of  Death.  The  Meaning  of  all  this  is  very 
plain  :  "  Do  we  not  fay  very  juftly,  that  you 
"  treat  us  juft  as  the  Samaritans  do,  with  Ran- 
"  cour  and  Malice  j  and  that  you  are  really 
€t  madr  He  replies,  "  I  am  not  mad,  but 
cc  know  what  I  fay  and  mean ;  my  Defign  is 
to  honour  my  Father,  and  with  a  View  of 
promoting  this  good  Defign  I  tell  you,  He 
that  obeys  what  I  fay  Jloall  live  for  ever!* 
They  inftantly  reply,  "  Now  it  is  evident 
you  are  mad:  Abraham  is  dead,  and  the 
Prophets ;  and  yet  you  tell  us  that  he  that 
obeys  your  Doctrines  mail  live  for  ever  : 
Whom  tnakeft  thou  thy  felff 

Had  not  St.  John,  in  the  Paffage  firft  ci- 
ted, explained  fo  particularly  what  was  meant 
by  having  a  Devil,  ( or  Demon,  for  fo  it  is  al- 
ways to  be  read)  we  mould  probably  have  un- 
derstood thefe  Places  of  Madnefs,  or  of  a  difor- 
dered  Underftancling :  Becaufe  fo  many  Inftan- 
ces  might  be  produced  out  of  heathen  Authors, 
where  thofe  who  were  called  Cerriti  or  Lar- 
vati,  or  Lymphatici,  and  were  fuppofed  to  be 
affe&ed  by,  or  to  be  under  the  Direction  or 
Influence  of  Demons,  were  all  in  their  Degree 
mad.  But  as  the  Words  are  explained  in  the 
Gofpel  itfelf,  it  is  eafy  to  fee  upon  wrhat 
Grounds  the  Jews  fiid  to  our  Saviour, 
Thou  haft  a  Devil.  They  had  neither  feen 
nor  heard  any  Demon  in  bimt  nor  in  John  the 

Baptijl  i 


(  39  ) 

Baptijl ,  and  yet  inftantly  they  charge  them 
with  having  one.  Whence  did  this  proceed  ? 
Or  why  do  they  fay  a  Devil,  rather  than  any 
thing  elfe?  They  faw  indeed,  what  they 
thought  to  be  Madnefs,  and  nothing  elfe. 
From  this  vifible  Effect  then  they  prefently 
imagined  a  Demon  (or  Devil)  to  be  the  Cauje\ 
and  therefore  charged  him  with  what  they 
did  not  fee ',  arguing  from  the  Effect  to  the 
Caufe.  And  therefore  when  Jofephus,  or  O- 
thers,  call  fuch  or  fuch  Perfons  Demoniacksy 
they  may  do  it  merely  from  certain  Symptoms 
of  which  they  fuppofed  Demons  to  be  the 
Caufe,  though  no  Evidence  of  fuch  Demons 
appeared.  And  indeed  it  was  cujiomary  for 
the  Jews  to  attribute  to  Evil  Spirits  certain 
great  Diforders,  which  either  diftorted  the  Bo- 
dy, or  occafioned  Phrenfy,  or  DiflraBion  of  the 
Mind:  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  has  well  obferved.? 

The  Paffages  already  produced,  which  make 
the  having  a  Devil  and  Madnefs  to  be  the 
fame  thing,  will  help  us  to  underftand  fome 
others,  which  at  firft  Sight  may  appear  more 
intricate.  Thus  for  Inftance ;  in  St.  Matthew , 
c.  xvii.  1 5,  there  came  a  certain  Man  to  our 
Lord,  who  kneeled  down  and  faid,  Lord  have 
Mercy  upon  my  Son,  for  he  is  lunatick,  a?id 

P  Judasis  ufitatiffimum  erat  morbos  quofdam  graviores,  eos 
praefertim  quibus  vel  diftortum  eil  corpus,  vel  mens  turbata,  et 
;.agitata  Phrenefi,  malis  Sp:rmbu3  attribuere,  Lightfoot  Her, 
Heb.  Matt.  xvii.  15. 

fore 


(  40  ) 

fore  vexed :  for  oft-times  he  falleth  into  the 
Fire,  and  oft  into  the  Water.  The  other  E- 
vangelifts  give  us  a  mere  particular  Account 
of  this  young  Man's  Cafe.  St.  Mark,  c.  ix. 
17,  18,  makes  the  Man  to  fay  to  our  Savi- 
our  /  have  brought   unto   thee  my  Son, 

which  hath  a  dumb  Spirit ;  and  wherejbever  he 
taketh  him>  he  teareth  him,  and  he  foameth, 
and  gnafheth  with  his  Teeth,  and  pineth 
away.  When  the  young  Man  was  brought 
to  our  Lord,  v.  20,  the  Spirit  tare  him,  and 
he  fell  on  the  Ground,  and  wallowed,  foaming. 
In  St.  Luke,  the  Cafe  is  reprefented  thus, 
c.  ix.  39.  A  Spirit  taketh  him,  and  he  fud- 
denly  crieth  out,  [or  fhrieks]  and  it  teareth  him 
that  he  foameth  again,  and  bruifing  him, 
hardly  departeth  from  him.  This  Man  was 
plainly,  what  Juftin  Martyr  defcribes  thofe 
which  were  ^Jeized  by  Demons  to  be,  r  thrown 
upon  the  Ground;  and  he  is  plainly  a  Demoni- 
ack,  for  in  curing  him  Jefus  rebuked  the  De- 
vil, Matt.  xvii.  18.  From  the  Symptoms  he 
had -foxing  into  the  Fire,  or  Water,  tear- 
ing himfeif  gnafl:i?ig  with  his  'Teeth,  foaming, 
wallowing  on  the  Ground,  being  bruifed,  and 
then  the  Fit  leaving  him,  his  Cafe  was  Epi- 
leptick.     Celjus  obferves  of  fuch  Perfons,  f  The 

9   AeK^ev.j.V.TTii,  '■l>-j%x7q  ^Tz&ccvovrav  Xtty&u*o[fy-ct.     Juft.  Mart, 
r  'r»,Tra^©i.     Ibid.   ApoJ.   2. 

f  Homo  fubito  concidir,  ex  ore  Spumse  moventur, homi- 

11cm  confumit.    Ceffus  Lib.  3.  c.  23. 

Man 


4i  ) 

Man  all  of  a  fudden  falls  down,  foams  at  the 
Mouth,  and  when  the  Dijlemper  is  ?iew  upon  him, 
it  makes  him  pine  away.  Hippocrates  has  given 
us  the  Symptoms  of  the  Epilepjy  more  accurate- 
ly. *  "  He  becomes  uncapable  of  fpeaking, 
cc  and  is  fuffbcated,  and  Foam  runs  out  of  the 
"  Mouth,  his  Teeth  gnafh,  the  Hands  are 
cc  clojejljut,  the  Eyes  are  dijlorted,  they  under- 
cc  Jland  nothing : — he  falls  down,  he  kicks  with 
"  his  Feet.  After  this  particular  Account  of 
the  Symptoms,  he  explains  the  natural  Caufe 
of  each ;  and  fays  u  Thus  is  this  Dijlemper  to 
young  People  -,  He  adds,  *  When  the  Dijbrder 
is  of  long  ftanding,  it  is  not  curable.  This  is 
a  direct  Expofition  of  the  Cafe  before  us,  and 
fhews  the  Man  to  be  plainly  Epileptic. 

You  will  fay  perhaps  then,  that  Madnefs  is 
not  the  fame  as  having  a  Devil,  but  Epilep- 
jy, which  is  a  different  Diftemper.  But  the 
Circumftances  will  clear  up  this  Point.     As 

ijl,  It  is  obferved  that  this  Diftemper  had 
been  long  upon  him.  How  long,  fays  our  Sa- 
viour, is  it  ago  fmce  this  came  unto  him  f  And 
he  J  aid,  Of  a  Child,  Mark  ix.  21.     zdly,  I 

*  'A^y®-"  yivsrat,  y^,  ot^fc,  <£y.  t»  fo^fKT^  Cs/.pizi,  <C  01  ocbvTit, 
triwy.pxtco-i,  *£  oti  #J*pj<;  (rvmuvTcii,  fc  to.-  lyj^aro',  2>\tj.<?fi<$MTcui   k, 

*£iv  (ppovtxiri 7rpo<r7Ti7rTn ^xxTifyi  Tourt  xcxnv.     De   morbo 

facro. 

u  Toitri  yjsv  »y  TTctihotcnv  'areo  ytvirui.      Ibid. 

w  'Qnorcvi  0  mci/®*  ynnrcn  rvj  W<r&>,  gvy,  tri  w(Tluj&'  ytviren. 
Ibid. 

G  mult 


(    42    ) 

muft  obferve  from  Hippocrates,  xMelancho 
lick  Perjbns  are  "very  often  wont  to  be  Epilep- 
tic, and  Epileptic  Perfons  Melancholick. 
Each  of  thefe  Diflempers  prevail,  as  the  Dijbr- 
der  inclines  to  either  Body  or  Mind :  If  to  the 
Body,  they  are  Epileptic ;  if  to  the  Mind, 
they  are  Melancholick.  ^dly,  It  muft  be  ad- 
ded from  the  fame  Author,  that  where  the 
Epilepfy  *  has  grown  np  with  a  Perfon  from 
his  Childhood,  (as  was  the  exprefs  Cafe  of  the 
Perfon  before  us )  the  Cure  is  very  difficult, 
^thly,  St.  Matthew  expreffly  calls  him  a  Ln- 
natic.  He  is  Lunatic  and  fore  vexed.  5thly> 
I  cannot  but  obferve  that  Alexander  Trallia- 
mis  gives  us  an  Account  of  a  Cure  of  the 
Epilepfy,  which  he  learnt  in  Hetruria  from  a 
Country/nan,  who  cutting,  fays  he,  wild  Rue 
in  a  Field,  his  Fellow  Servant,  ctXyvicLxos  a>v 
ima-tv,  being  a  Lunatic,  was  feized  with  a  Fit 
of  Epilepfy.  Alex.  'Trail.  Lib.  1.  Exactly 
in  St.  Matthews  Language. 

Thefe  Things  being  confidered,  it  appears 
that  this  Young  man  was  Epileptic  :  His  Epi- 
lepfy had  brought  him  to  be  Melancholick^ 
which  is  the  natural  Turn  of  the  Diftemper; 
and    his  Melancholy    had    made    him    mad. 

*  Ol  fitiXxy^oXixoi  x^  i7rO.17TTix.ok  ita£x<rt  yuio%  coc,  tTTiToTroXv,  <c" 
c*  »ti ?^7ttikci  yjiXxy^Xixoi  Txtuv  o\  tKccTtpov  yuuX^ov  yi'vtrxi'  iqf 
c~or<pcc  oci  pt'jiry  txto  to  ulpa?Y\y^x:  '  Hr  yA>  i<,  to  era/Act  tWAjjTrrct ; 
t\  at  fT*  tw  2>ldvow  iMXayx.0X1x.0l.  Hippoc.  de  Morbis  popular. 
Lib.  6. 

y    Ot*i  *&jn  wtuottt  (Tvv/.vliTcti  -m*~«,?TciXXcify(;  *ctXt7rtj  yi'viTctt. 

From 


(43  ) 

From  hence  St.  Matthew,  in  his  Account,  ex- 
preffly  calls  him  Lunatic.  The  other  Two 
Evangelifts  take  Notice,  the  One  of  the  dumb 
Spirit  which  he  had,  the  Other,  of  the  Spi- 
rit, but  fay  not  a  Word  of  his  Madnefs, 
which  was  implied  in  the  Term,  Spirit  : 
And  then  they  defcribe  at  large  the  Symptoms 
of  the  Epilepfy.  St.  Matthew  defcribes  the 
Epileptic  Fits,  as  foon  as  he  had  faid  that  the 
Young  man  was  Lunatic :  The  two  other 
Evangelifts  defcribe  the  Epileptic  Fits,  as  foon 
as  they  had  faid  that  he  had  a  Spirit,  or  a 
dumb  Spirit.  Therefore  Lunatic  and  Demo-> 
niack>  or  having  a  Spirit  y  or  a  Devil,  muft 
be  the  fame. 

I  am  fenfible  how  difficult  it  is  to  account 
for  every  Expreffion  on  thefe  Occafions,  where 
we  often  know  not  the  exact  Ideas  to  which 
fome  particular  Words  were  applied.  We 
muft  be  often  left  to  Uncertainty  and  Con- 
jecture, and  he  that  gue/Jes,  not  irrationally^ 
ought  to  be  excufed  if  he  varies  from  com- 
mon Sentiments,  when  common  Sentiments 
are  not  at  all  intelligible.  In  the  Proceft  of 
the  Hiftory  of  this  Young  man,  it  appears 
that  the  Difciples  of  our  Lord  could  not  cure 
him.     The  Father  of  him  tells  our  Saviour, 

/  fpake  to  thy  Difciples  that  they  Jhould 

cafl  him  out,  and  they  could  not,  Mark  ix.  1 8, 
or  as  St.  Matthew  has  it,  I  brought  him  to  thy 
DifcipleSy  and  they  could  not  cure  him.     Our 

G  2  Saviour 


(  44  ) 

Saviour  curing  him  Jo  eafily,  his  Difciples  af- 
terwards afked  him  privately,  or  apart,  Why 
could  not  we  cajl  him  out  ?  His  Anfwer,  as  it 

lies  in  St.  Mark,  is  only  thus This  Kind 

ran  come  forth  by  nothing,  but  by  Prayer  and 

Fajiing,  c,  ix.  29.     But  in  St.  Matthew,  the 

Anfwer  is  much  larger  and  fuller,  and  from 

thence  perhaps  we  may  be  able  to  conjecture 

at  the  Meaning  of  thefe  Words.     Jefus  [aid 

unto  them,  becaufe  of  your  Unbelief.     For  ve~ 

rily  I  fay  unto  you,    if  ye  have  Faith  as  a 

Grain  of  Muflard-Jeed,  ye  Jloall  fay  unto  this- 

Mountain,    Remove  hence  unto  yonder  Place, 

and  it  Jhall  remove,  and  nothing  Jhall  be  un~ 

pofible  for   you.     Howbeit,    this  Kind  goeth 

not  out  but  by  Prayer  and  Failing.     I  obfer- 

ved  before,  that  this  was  an  Epileptic  Cafe  \ 

and   it  was   an    Epileptic  Diforder   of    long 

flancimg :  and  confequently  either  incurable, 

or  very  hard  to  be  cured,  by  any  Means  of  Art, 

The  Determination  of  the  Old  Phylitians  is, 

1  That  neither  Broths,  nor  even  Meats  that  are 

light  and  eafy  of  Digeftion,  nor  Flefh  of  any 

Sort,  and particularly  Hogs  Flejh,  is  not  good  for 

this  Sort  of  People.     You  are  not  to  give  Juch 

any  Food  at  all  till  the  third  Day  after  the 

%  Cibum  poft  diem  tcrtium dare.     Neque  forbhiones  his 

-.  1:  ulioqui  molles  et  fhciles  cibi,  necue  caro>  minimeque  fuilU 

-ronve'iit, et  uhi  tertio  die  cibus  aatus  eft  intermirtere  quar- 

tum,  et  invicem  alrerum  quemqu-j donee  quatuordecim  dies 

ranfeant.     Celfiu  Lib.  3.  c.  ;;. 

Fit, 


(  45   ) 

Fit ;  and  when  he  has  taken  fome  Suftenance, 
on  the  third  Day,  you  mufi  leave  it  off  the 

fourth,    and  jo  on  every  other  Day, -//// 

fourteen  Days  are  pajl.  When  great  Exercife 
is  prefcribed,  yet  ftill  the  Rule  is  a  Let  him 
have  but  little  Victuals  -,  or  let  him  abftain  al- 
together from  Flefh. 

I  know  not  whether  this  may  help  us  to 
folve  the  prefent  Difficulty.  The  Difciples 
afk  why  they  could  not  cure  this  young  man. 
Our  Saviour's  Anfwer  to  them  is,  "  Becaufe  of 
"  your  Unbelief.  For  had  you  Faith  equal  to 
"  the  Advantages  you  have,  you  fhould  be 
cc  able  to  do  the  moft  difficult  Things,  nay 
€€  nothing  which  is  neceffary  to  gain  Credit  to 
"  your  Authority  or  Doctrine,  fhall  be  im- 
"  poffible."  This  contains  a  full  Anfwer  to 
their  Queftion :  and  what  follows,  about  the 
Neceffity  of  Fajli?tg  and  Prayer,  may  not  re- 

a  Paulum  cibi  afTumat.     Ibid. 

Kpjftjy  7TXVTS>i.6)$  KX.X.OV    i^lV    CCTTi^itBxi  ■         -oXiyoV   Xiit/j-sCt.VZTa,  x± 

oXiyuKic,.     It  is  good  to  abjiain  from  Flefh  entirely.     But  if  he 

dcjires  fome let  him  take  but  little,  and  feldom.     Again,  Tee. 

ci  y^iu.  TrcipaiTsi'&c&i  yjixfi  rzteici$  cc^ecXXxy^.     He  ought  to  abftairt 
from  Flefh  till  he  is  quite  cured.     And  then  follow  a  great  man/ 
Cautions   about   what  the  Epileptic  ought  to  eat  and  drink. 
Alex  and.  Trallianus.  Lib.  I. 

- — —oil's;  oXiyo7?o(TM,  tevy.x,  te^rx-  Xx%c{,vm  iCpQav,  oy.o<rct  it; 

ajvxpivty[Azct.  Let  him  be  kept  altogether  from  Flefh  ;  but  if  that 
cannot  be,  let  him  be  kept  fo  during  the  Cure.     Let  him  drink 

but  little  Wine,    white,    thin. ■  Let  him  eat  thofe  boilez 

Herbs,  which  are  as  Jharp  as  pojfible,  &c.  Aretseus  fafioiTrtk* 
gfovinqv  nciQw,  c.  4, 


(46  ) 

late  to  the  Difficulty  which  they  propofed. 
A  miraculous  Power  was  neceffary  to  cure  this 
Diforder  in  the  Way  which  Jefus  cured  it. 
Is  a  miraculous  Power  to  be  attained  by  Faft- 
ing and  Prayer  ?  Or  cannot  a  Jiipernatural 
Power  cure  a  Diforder,  fuppofing  it  to  be 
granted  to  Men  as  it  was  to  the  Apoftles,  un- 
lefs  they  fajl  and  pray  for  the  Removal  of  the 
Diforder  ?  I  cannot  conceive  that  our  Saviour 
meant,  that  the  Perfon  who  would  expel  this 
Kind  of  Devil,  (or  would  cure  an  Epilepfy  of 
long  Continuance}  mufr.  neceffarily  fajl  and 
pray,  or  elfe  that  he  could  not  pojjibly  cure  it : 
For  our  Saviour  himfelf  did  neither  fall  nor 
pray,  notwithftanding  he  cured  the  Youth  -, 
nor  did  he  blame  his  Difciples  for  not  fafting 
or  prayi?ig -,  nor  did  he  charge  them  with  any 
thing  but  Unbelief,  as  the  Reafon  why  they 
did  not,  or  could  not,  cure  the  Diforder.  Nor 
did  the  Difciples  afterwards  ever  fall:  and 
pray  ( that  we  read  of)  in  order  to  cure  any 
Diftempers,  or  to  caft  out  any  Devils.  Nor 
was  Fafting  and  Prayer  required  of  the 
diflempered  Perfon  by  our  Saviour  in  order  to 
his  Cure,  fince  our  Saviour  fhewed  his  Power 
in  curing  him  inftantaneoufly,  and  without 
the  Means  which  the  Phyfitians  were  wont 
to  prefcribe  ;  /  charge  thee  to  come  out,  and 
enter  no  more  into  him.  Nor,  laftly,  can  I 
think,  that  our  Saviour  gave  this  Direction, 
"  to  inform  his  Difciples,  that  this  miraculous 

"  Faith 


(  47  ) 

cc  Faith,  being  the  fpecial  Gift  of  God,  was 
to  be  fought  for  by  flagrant  Devotion,  that 
it  might  never  be  wanting  to  them.,, 
An  ingenious  Phyfitian,  to  wh'om  I  propo- 
fed  this  Difficulty,  offered  me  this  critical 
Emendation  of  the  Place ;  inftead  of  h  vrpo- 
(nwxy  %$j  wi<Tto&,>  to  read  h  ^poo-i^ei  vv\^i[cty  in 
conjiant  Fajling,  juft  as  all  the  Phyfitians  were 
wont  in  this  Cafe  to  prefcribe.  If  this  were 
the  true  Reading  in  St.  Mark,  St.  Matthew 
muff:  be  corrected  in  the  fame  Manner,  fince 
it  is  agreed,  that  the  Verfe  was  not  at  all 
originally  in  St.  Matthew,  but  inferted  into  his 
Gofpel  from  Mark,  as  Dr.  Mills  has  rightly 
obferved.     If  this  be  the  Cafe,  the  Meaning 

of  the  Words  is "  You  could  not  cure 

"  this  Man  becaufe  of  your  Unbelief:  But 
yet  you  fee  how  eafy  this  Diftemper  is  re- 
moved -,  though  it  be  a  Diftemper,  which 
when  of  long  Continuance,  is  allowed  by 
all  to  be  hard  to  be  cured,  and  for  which  is 
ufually  prefcribed  a  long  Courfe  of  Failing." 
This  indeed  would  folve  the  Difficulty ; 
but  as  no  various  Reading  will  countenance 
the  Emendation,  it  may  perhaps  be  thought 
to  be  cutting  the  Knot. 

I  am  apt  to  think,  that  the  Phrafe,  by  Fajl- 
ing  and  Prayer,  is  proverbially  ufed,  and  im- 
plies great  Difficulty  only.  For  as  neither 
Failing  nor  Prayer  were  here  ufed  on  this 
Occafion  by  either  our  Saviour,  or  the  diftem- 

pered 


(  48 

pered  Perfon,  tlie  Words  muft  be  taken  not 
in  too  ftridt  a  Senfe.  I  conceive  therefore 
that  our  Lord  defigned  to  oppofe  to  the  ufual 
Length  of  Time  and  Difficulty  of  Cure,  the 
Speed  and  Eafe  with  which  he  had  removed 
this  Diftemper;  <£  This  is  the  Diftemper  that 
"  All  People  make  fo  great  Difficulty  in  cu~ 
<c  ring  !  yet  you  fee  how  eafily  it  is  done 
"  by  me."  Our  Saviour  fays  that  it  was  be- 
caufe  of  their  Want  of  Faith,  that  the  Difci- 
ples  could  not  cure  this  Perfon  :  nor  does  he 
blame  them  for  not  Fa/ling,  but  justifies  them 
in  not  Fajii?ig>  in  other  Places :  Had  they 
therefore  had  Faith,  they  might  have  cured 
this  Diftemper.  This  plainly  fhews,  that  in 
this  Place,  the  Words  are  not  to  be  taken 
too  rigidly  ;  but  as  when  it  is  faid  one  cannot 
obtain  a  Thing,  nee  prece,  nee  pretio,  no 
more  is  meant,  than  that  one  in  vain  attempts 

to  get  it ;    So  here This  Kind  goeth  not 

out  but  by  Prayer  and  Fajting,  no  more  is  in- 
tended than,  that  this  Diforder  is  very  hardly, 
or  naturally  impoffible,  to  be  removed.  But 
this  I  refer  to  the  Reader's  Judgment  \  and 
Avail  readily  fubmit  to  better  Information.    ' 

There  is  another  Inftance  of  a  Demoniaek, 
Mark  v.  I.  (St.  Matthew  fays  there  were  Two 
of  them,  c.  viii.  28.)  which  will  require  a 
particular  Difcuflion.  Immediately  there  met 
htm  out  of  the  Tombs  a  Man  with  A  n  unclean 

Spirit, 


(  49  ) 

Spirit,  who  had  his  Dwelling  among  the  'Tombs y 
and  no  Man  could  bind  him,  no  not  with 
Chains,  becaufe  that  he  had  been  often  bound 
with  Fetters  and  Chains,  and  the  Chains  had 
been  plucked  afunder  by  him,  and  the  Fetters 
broken  in  Pieces,  neither  could  any  Man  tame 
him.  And  always  Night  and  Day  he  was  in 
the  Mountains,  and  in  the  Tombs,  crying,  and 
cutting  himjelf  with  Stones.  St.  Matthew  fays 
there  were  Two  that  met  him,  exceeding  fierce, 
fo  that  no  Man  might  pafs  by  that  way,  c.  viii. 
28.  St.  Luke's  Account  is  thus,  c.  viii. 
27 — 29.  There  met  him  one  which  had  Devils 
a  long  Time,  and  ware  no  Cloths,  neither 
abode  in  any  Houje  but  in  the  Tombs. 
The  unclean  Spirit  oftentimes  had  caught  him, 
and  he  was  kept  bound  with  Chains,  and  in 
Fetters  ;  and  he  brake  the  Bands,  and  was  dri- 
ven of  the  Devil  into  the  Wildernefs. 
Mark  and  Luke  agree  in  this,  that  when  our 
Saviour  alked  Him  [the  Man]  his  Name, 
H  e  anfwered,  Legion :  The  Reafon  of  this 
Anfwer  is  in  St.  Mark,  for  we  are  many  ;  in 
St.  Luke,  the  Reafon  is,  becaufe  many  Devils 
were  entered  into  him.  Laftly,  When  the 
Man  was  cured,  the  People  found  him  a  in 
his  right  Mind,  fay  both  Mark,  c.  v,  15.  and 
Luke  c.  viii.  3  5. 

H  From 


(  5°) 

From  thefe  Accounts  of  this  unhappy  Man, 
we  muft  obferve 

if,  Here  was  a  Perfon,  not  in  his  right 
Mind;  running  about  naked;  plucking  afun- 
der  his  Chains  or  Fetters ;  no  one  could  tame 
him  5  living  in  the  Mountains  like  a  wild 
Man  5  roaring  out ;  cutting  himfelf ;  fierce  ; 
miichievous  to  Paflengers.  Thefe  are  all  or- 
dinary Symptoms  of  Lunacy ',  or  Madnefs,  if 
the  Perfon  be  fuffered  to  ramble  out  in  a  ra- 
ving Condition. 

idly,  It  is  faid,  no  Man  could  bind  or  tame 
him.  Hence  it  appears  that  his  Cafe  was 
Madnefs,  and  not  Epileptick,  fince  Epilepticks 
are  not  wont  to  be  bound  with  Chains. 

idly,  This  was  a  Perfon  with  an  unclean 
Spirit,  Mark  v.  2.  and  he  is,  before  his  Cure, 
conftantly  treated  by  our  Saviour,  and  by 
Mark  and  Luke,  as  poflefled  by  One  only  Spi- 
rit. Come  out,  thou  unclean  Spirit,  v.  8. 
He  was  pojjeffed  with  a  Devil,    v.    15,    16. 

And  fo  St.  Luke. He  commanded  the 

unclean  Spirit  to  come  out  of  the  Man,  for 
oftentimes  1  t  had  caught  him,  c.  viii.  29. 
Our  Saviour  then  faying  in  the  Angular,  Come 
out  Thou  unclean  Spirit,  at  the  Time  he 
cured  him  •  and  not  in  the  Plural, Ye  un- 
clean Spirits, notwithftanding  the  Man  had 

iaid  he  had  a  Legion  in  him,  it  follows  that 
this  Account  of  many  Devils  was  nothing 
clfc  but  the  Man's  Imagination,  and  not  the 

Truth 


(5*  r 

Truth  of  Things  -,  For  to  call  out  one  Devi/, 
when  a  Legion  was  in  him,  was  really  do- 
ing no  Service  to  the  Perfon  afflicted. 

\thly,  In  St.  Mark  and  Luke,  where  we 
have  the  Cafe  of  this  Man  at  large  defcribed, 
we  hear  of  no  more  than  One  unclean  Spirit, 
till  Jefus  afked  the  Man  his  Name.  Now  as 
to  have  a  Devil  and  to  be  mad  is  the  fame 
thing,  this  Man  was  confidered  merely  as  a 
Madman.  And  fo  all  that  follows  is  confid- 
ent. Our  Saviour  alks  the  Man  his  Name : 
His  Anfwer  was  that  of  a  mere  Madman, 
that  his  Name  was  Legion,  for  many  Devils 
were  entered  into  him. 

tfhly,  Taking  him  for  a  Madman,  could 
any  thing  be  more  natural  than  what  pafled. 
He  addrefles  our  Saviour  openly,  and  without 
any  Fear  or  Care  -,  calling  him  the  Son  of 
God,  and  proclaiming  him  what  he  was. 
What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jefus  thou  Son 
of  God  moft  high  ?  It  was  eafy  for  him  to 
know  Jefus,  fince  his  Fame  was  fpread  in  all 
thofe  Parts ;  and  that  made  him  addrefs  him 
in  the  Manner  he  did.  And  it  was  as  natural 
for  him,  conlidering  him  as  a  Jew,  in  his 
mad  Fit  to  afk  that  the  Devils  which  were  in 
him  might  be  permitted  to  enter  into  the 
Herd  of  Swine  which  he  faw  juft  before  him. 
The  Sight  of  them  would  naturally  put  the 
odd  Image  into  his  Head  :  And  when  Jefus, 
is  faid  to  permit  them,  or  give  them  Leave  -, 

H  z  or 


(52) 

or  in  St.  Matthew's  Language  to  fay Go. 

All  this  is  no  more  than  not  concerning 

himfelf  with  the  fantaftic  Humour  of  a  Mad- 
man, but  humouring  him  whilft  he  cured 
him. 

But  the  main  Difficulty  is  ftill  behind. 
They,  i.  e.  the  Devils,  when  they  were  come 
out,  went  into  the  Herd  of  Swine,  and  be- 
hold!  the  whole  Herd  of  Swine  ran  violently 
down  a  Jleep  Place  into  the  Sea,  and  were 
drowned,  Matt.  viii.  32.  All  the  Three  Evan- 
gelists agree  in  telling  us,  that  the  Devils  en- 
tered the  Swine,  But  yet  we  mull  obferve, 
that  all  this  Legion  of  Devils  was  nothing  but 
the  Madman  $>  Talk.  If  therefore  by  any  Ac- 
cident the  Swine  ran  down  the  Precipice, 
whilft  the  Man  or  Men  were  under  Cure, 
whether  drove  down,  or  frighted  down  by  the 
Madmen,  This  would  fully  anfwer  all  the 
Story.  For  as  to  the  Requeft  itfelf,  That  was 
nothing  but  the  mad  Difcourfe  of  one  difor- 
dered  in  his  Senfes :  Juft  as  I  my  felf  met  with 
a  Woman  who  told  me  of  Numbers  of  Devils 
in  her;  and  confiftent  with  that  Principle,  fhe 
told  me  what  This  or  That  particular  Devil  faid; 
and  what  they  defired  to  be  done ;  and  me  afked 
me,  if  I  did  not  hear  or  fee  the  Devils. 

But  fuppofing  this  Conjecture,  that  the  Mad- 
man drove  or  frighted  the  Swine  down  a  fteep 
Place  into  the  Sea,  will  not  fufficiently  account 
for  the  Expreffions  of  the  Evangelifts,  I  con- 
ceive 


(53  ) 

ceive  that  there  can  be  no  greater  Difficulty 
in  this  Cafe,  than  there  is  in  one  Man's  Dif- 
temper  paffing  into  another  Man.  The  Mad- 
nefs  therefore  of  this  Man  may  be  conceived 
to  pafs  into  the  Swine,  juft  in  the  fame 
Manner  as  the  Leprofy  of  one  Man  could  be 
transferred  into  another.  The  Leprofy  of 
Naaman  was  to  cleave  to  Gehazi,  and  to 
his  Seed  for  ever,  2  Kings  v,  27.  Which 
way  foever  this  is  to  be  accounted  for,  I  ap- 
prehend that  by  the  fame  Method  the  In- 
ftance  before  us  may  be  refolved  without  any 
Difficulty,  the  like  Effect  being  imputable  to 
a  like  Caufe.  I  fhall  have  a  further  Occafion 
to  confider  fome  other  Circumstances  of  this 
Story  by  and  by.  In  the  Interim,  I  cannot 
but  be  furprized  at  a  Calculation  lately  made 
of  how  many  Devils  entered  into  each 
Hog.  Had  Mr.  IVooljion,  in  his  Defign  to  ex- 
pofe  Chriftianity  to  Contempt  and  Ridicule, 
calculated  in  fuch  a  Manner  ;  I  dare  fay,  that 
thofe  who  were  fo  zealous  to  inflict  Punifh- 
ments  upon  the  Man  for  his  Banter,  would 
have  pitched  upon  this  very  Inftance,  as  one 
of  the  moft  flagrant  of  all. 

I  know  not  whether  there  is  a  fingle  In- 
ftance of  a  Demoniack,  which  may  not  fairly 
and  juftly  be  explained  by  Epilepfy,  or  Mad- 
nefs.  The  Cafe  of  the  Pythonefs,  Acts  xvi. 
16 — 18,  is  that  of  a  Perfon  that  pretended  to 
tell  Fortunes  5  and  engaged  the  Attention  of 

the 


(54) 

the  People,  by  fpeaking  inwardly.  This  was 
called  a  Spirit  of  Divination  ;  and  when  flie 
was  difcovered,  flie  was  difabled  from  playing 
this  Trick  any  longer,  by  St.  Paul's  faying  to 

her, /  command  thee  to  come  out  of  her. 

No  more  was,  or  could  be  meant,  than  to 
put  a  Stop  to  the  Trick  the  Woman  ufed. 
She  was  not  a  Demoniack  in  the  Senfe  of 
thole  that  are  mentioned  in  the  Gofpels ;  no 
more  than  the  Woman  whom  St.  Luke  men- 
tions c.  xiii.  ii — 1 6,  who  is  faid  to  have  had 
a  Spirit  of  Infrmity  eighteen  Tears,  and  to  be 
bound  by  Satan  fo  long.  She  was  never  repu- 
ted a  Demoniack ;  but  only  to  be  fo  bent  in 
her  Body,  as  not  to  be  able  to  lift  herfelf  up.  A 
Spirit  of  Infirmity  is  nothing  but  an  infirm 
Difpofition  or  Habit ;,  in  the  Jewifli  Phrafeolo- 
gy :  and  the  Chriftian  Writers  are  full  of  the 
fame  Manner  of  Expreffions,  applying  to  eve- 
ry Vice,  and  every  Paffion,  and  every  Dif- 
pofition, the  Name  of  Spirit.     And  as  to  the 

other  Expreffion, Satan  hath  bound  her, 

-That  Word  would  have  been  ufed,  what- 
ever was  the  true  Caufe  of  this  Indifpofition, 
or  whatever  was  the  Obftruftion  to  her  Health. 
Satan  is  nothing  elfe  but  Adverfary,  and  is 
to  be  underftood  according  to  the  Subject  to 
which  it  is  applied.  Thus  Matt.  xvi.  23, 
Our  Saviour  fays  to  St.  Peter,  Get  thee  behind 
me,  Satan,  thou  art  an  Offence  unto  me,  i.  e. 
You  are  an  Adverfary  to  the  Means  by  which 

God 


(  55  ) 

God  intends  to  erect  his  Kingdom,  and  you 
talk  as  fuch.  Peter  here  is  called  Satan, 
from  his  oppofing  the  Means  of  the  Chriftian 
Difpenfation.  And  fo  to  be  bound  of  Satan, 
when  applied  to  an  Infirmity ,  means  no  more 
than  that  which  was  an  Adverfary  to  Health, 
be  it  what  it  would.  The  Woman  here, 
feems  to  be  a  devout,  religious,  good,  Wo- 
man :  She  was  in  the  Synagogue  before  her 
Cure  ;  and  as  foon  as  fhe  was  cured,  fhe  glo- 
rified God,  Our  Saviour  bears  this  Teftimo- 
ny  to  her,  that  She  was  a  Daughter  of  A- 
braham  ;  by  which  he  meant  to  commend 
her  for  her  Faith,  and  good  Difpofition  of 
Mind.  Why  then  fhould  we  imagine  the 
Devil,  or  the  Prince  of  Devils,  to  have 
been  in  her  fo  many  Years  ?  Might  not 
one  have  Grounds  to  think  that  he  would  have 
perverted  her  Mind,  and  not  her  Body,  or 
have  diftorted  her  Soul,  and  not  have  made 
her  Carcafe  crooked? 

That  it  was  cuftomary  for  the  Jews  to  ap- 
ply the  Term,  Satan,  to  any  JLnemy,  is  plain 
from   2    Chron.   xxi.    i.   compared  with  the 

2  Sam.  xxiv.  I.     In  the  former  it  is  faid 

Satan  food  up  again]}  Ifrael,  and  provoked 
David  to  ?iumber  Ifrael.     In  the  latter  it  is 

faid The  Aiiger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled 

againft  Ifrael,  and  H  e  moved  David  againjl 
them,  to  Jay,  Go  nwnber  Ifrael.  Not  that 
God  moved  David  to  do  as  he  did;  for  then 
there  had  been  no  Fault :    but  it  was  fome- 

bodv 


(  5&  ) 

body  that  was  an  Enemy  of  the  I/raelites  in 
the  Event.  And  fo  2  Sam.  xix.  22.  David 
fays  to  Abif!:ay  What  have  I  to  do  with  you ,  j£ 
&/Z.T  0/  Tferujah,  /&?/  ^  jhould  be  Satan  /a 
jew  ?  i.  e.  that  ye  fhould  be  fuch  deadly  Ene- 
mies to  me.  So  here  in  the  Cafe  of  this  in- 
firm Woman,  Satan  had  bound  her  :  whatever 
was  the  Caufe  of  her  Infirmity,  whether  it 
proceeded  from  a  natural  Caufe,  or  from  fome 
malicious  Blow,  or  any  other  mifchievous  Ac- 
cident, which  in  the  Event  proved  fo  fatal 
to  her,  the  Jews  would  fay,  that  Satan  bound 
her.     Judceis  ufitatijjimum  erat   morbos 

quibus  dijlortum  eft  corpus malis  Spiritibus 

attribuere.     Lightfoot  on  Matt.  xvii.  15. 

This  Cafe  then  was  mere  Infirmity :  But 
every  Inftance  of  Perfons  called  Demoniacks 
are  Inftances  of  Epilepfy,  or  of  Madnefs.  Thus, 
A5fs  viii.  7.  The  People  attended  to  Philip,  who 
caft  out  unclean  Spirits  crying  with  aloud  Voice  -9 
i.  e.  he  cured  Men  that  were  raving.  And  fo 
Matt.  ix.  3  2,  3  3 .  They  brought  unto  him  a  dumb 
man,  pofTeffed  with  a  Devil:  and  when  the  Devil 
was  caft  out,  the  dumb  fpake.  Again,  Matt. 
xii.  22.  They  brought  unto  him  One  poffeffed 
with  a  Devil,  blind  and  dumb,  and  he  healed 
him,  infomuch  that  the  blind  and  dumb  both 
Jpake  and  jaw.  The  Pofflfiion  being  the  fame 
as  being  mad,  the  Circumftances  which  attend- 
ed it  mew  how  the  Man  was  affected.  E.  g* 
in  the  Cafe  juft  mentioned,  the  Madman  was  a 

blind 


(  57) 

blind  Man,  and  dumb,  either  through  natural 
Infirmity,  or  elfe  fullen  through  his  Diftem- 
per.  And  if  at  any  Time  a  determinate 
Number  of  Devils  are  faid  to  have  polTefled 
any  Perfon,  e.  g.  Mary  Magdalene,  out  of 
whom  went  Seven  Devils,  Luke  viii.  2.  Mark 
xvi.  9. — The  Meaning  is,  that  flie  had  affirm- 
ed in  her  Melancholy,  that  me  had  fo  many 
Devils  in  her,  juft  as  the  Madman  faid  that 
he  had  a  Legion  of  Devils  in  him.  This  will 
eafily  mew  us  the  Meaning  of  what  is  faid  in 
the  Ac7s,  c.  xix.  13 — 16,  concerning  the  va- 
gabond Jews  who  took  upon  them  to  call  over 
them  which  had  evil  Spirits  the  Name  of  the 
Lord  Jefus,  faying,    We  adjure  you  by  Jefus 

whom  Paul  preacheth. And  the  Evil  Spirit 

anjwered  and  faid,  Jefus  /  know,  and  Paul  1" 
know,  but  who  are  ye  ?  And  the  Man  in  who?n 
the  Evil  Spirit  was,  leapt  on  them,  and  over- 
came them,  and  prevailed  againjl  them,  Jo  thai 
they  fed  out  of  that  Houje  naked  and  wound- 
ed. The  mad  man  fell  upon  them,  and  tore 
their  Cloaths  off  their  Backs,  and  wounded 
them.  Thefe  Vagabond  exorcifis  pretended  by 
certain  Charms  to  cure  this  Diforder.  They 
finding  that  the  Apoftles,  endued  with  fu- 
pernatural  Powers  from  on  high,  did  in 
the  Name  of  Jefus  eafily  and  inftantaneoufly 
cure  any  Difeafe ;  They,  I  fay,  likewife 
pretended  to  this  Power ;  and  being  able  by 
their  Charms,   or  Exorcifms,   to  do  nothing, 

I  they 


(  53  )    _ 

they  differed  iuftly  the  Demerit  of  their  Rafh- 
nefs  and  Folly. 

It  will  be  worth  our  while   on  this  Occasi- 
on to  coniider  a   little  the  Practices  of  thefe 
vagabond  Jews,  thefe  ftroliir.g  Cheats.  St.  Luke 
here  defcribes  them  as  b  Strollers,  taking  upon 
them  to  expel  Devils  by  the  Name  of  the.  Lord 
Je/us.     This  was  a  new  Trick  they  had  taken 
up :  for  the  ufual  Practice  among  them  had 
been  to  do  it  in  the  Name  of  the  God  of  A- 
hraham,  and  the  God  of  Ifaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob.     When  fuflin  Martyr,  and  Origen, 
fpeak  of  Jews  and  Gypjies  driving  away  De- 
vils, they  do  it  as  if  there  was  found  to  be  a 
lingular  Force  or    Charm  in    thofe   Words. c 
If  you  exorcifc,   lays  Jufin    againft  Trypho, 
in  the  Name  of  any  of  your  Kings,   or  Jujl 
?nen,    or  Prophets,  or  Patriarchs,   none  of  the 
Devils  [or  Demons]  will  obey  you :  But  ifi?ideed 
any  of  you  exorcife  by  the  God  of  Abraham,  and 
the  God  of  Ifaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  p?~o- 

babh  he  will  obew     However   it  is  obfervable. 

J  y  i 

d  that  thefe  Exorcifts  did  not  dare  to  reft  the 

Bvent  upon  the  Charm  they  ufed  -y  but  they 

c  Yjc-  KUTet  jmcmto$  ^oUbXi^-  Ttm  tFUc  fff/tlt  yr-'<Sfr;y,S:rurvi  f2x<ri~ 
>£6J>  r,  Oir.uL,c.\  v,  ~;o<p  >r-u-  j  K  TCCtTttatflQUl  t+<sz >.&-<  VLOiTq,  &;£*  VSTa- 
vy.',  .-trircit   \tn>    ran   o*..i/*w>m     ce.?./.    i.    uzx.   i'cccx.^a   tu;   b[//&v  xutcC 

•  ::  coat.  Tryph   p    311. 

~«»,       Jbi'i. 

had 


(59) 

had  Recourfe  to  Art :  they  uied  Chains  to  fe- 
cure,  as  well  as  ftrong  Sce?its  to  expel  the 
Demon  out  of,  the  Demoniack. 

Origen  feems  to  impute  the  whole  Cure  to 
the  mere  Sound  of  the  Words  which  thefe 
Strollers  ufed ;  and  He  is  of  Opinion  that  the 

Sounds The  God  of  Abraham rightly 

fpoken,  were  effectual  to  drive  away  Devils. 
I  fay  rightly  fpoken :  For  the  Jewifo  Strollers 
and  the  Gyp/ies,  were  not  to  ufe  the  Greek 
Words,  nor  did  they  in  their  Charms :  But 
they  took  Care  to  pronounce  Hebrew  Words, 
the  better  to  impofe  upon  the  ignorant  People, 
d  The  Egyptians,  fays  he,  who  did  not  know  who 
Abraham  was.  xet  ufed  the  Words  the  God  of 
Abraham ;  and  fo  they  did,  Ij'aac  and  Jacob 
and  Ifrael -y  and  imputed  to,  and  promi/ed great 
Wonders  from  thole  Hebrew  Sounds  ,  and 
made  it  a  Part  of  their  Secret.  Some- 
times the  Jews  faid  in  their  Charms,  e  The 
God  of  Ifrael,  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  the 
God  that  drowned  the  Ki??g  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  the  Egyptians,  in  the  Red  Sea :  And  this 

a    IlO/lAof  TCt)f   i~XC6VT61V    CTXIUUMXC,  yjCtHTX\.  CV  TUC   AOfOJC   M.J7-X;    Ttix 

0  S-£C5   A^xxfX/ cxx.    1~:^xu>ko:  01   Tt$   tfiv  o  A*pzxu*.      Tx  a 

ccurk  >.sx.TiW  y^  yrspt  rS  Icxux,  £  5T*p»  t£  Ixk&iZ,  ;£  ~*pi  ri  W:u.*At 
ceruse  ouioXoyXf/u&ac,  Evpxtx  ovrx  oio^xtx  77^X>m'/J6  t«s  A.y^r  ,a, 
i7rxy,i~A>,e>[/jivoic,  dvipyuxv  twx  cUViTeeprat  f/sx&a/xci.    Oi;g.  C    Cell. 

1  I.  p.  1^7. 

e    O  $-£65   t£  IcrpatiA,   >£.  o  3"£C5   ran  Efcpajryy,  <c  o  S-ssc   I  ^ztx~c:- 
t&xtxc,  ov  ty,  Epufyos  S-xs.xc&v,  rev  Aiyuxli&t  Sxai?.iX  *£  ry;  A;yt  r  ,  -. 
Troht.xKis  cyoi/jx^iTXi  7>xox>&yj<.xvLioti'&'  kcctx  ozifAoyaa.     J  bid.  1.  4. 

p.  184. 

I  2  was 


(  6o  ) 

was  of  mighty  Influence  againft  Demons,  as 
Origen  tells  us,  Book  4.  p.  184. 

One  may  well  wonder,  whence  it  is  that 
fuch  impudent  Vagabonds  v/ith  nothing  but 
hard  Names  in  their  Mouths,  fhould  be  able 
to  gull  and  impofe  on  fo  many  as  they  did. 
But  one  would  more  wonder  that  Men  of 
Learning,  fuch  as  Origen  was,  fhould  contend 
for  the  Power  and  Efficacy  of  fuch  Sounds 
upon  real  Diftempers.  The  Sons  of  Sceva  might 
pretend  to  caft  out  evil  Spirits  by  a  new  Charm 
as  they  thought  -y  and  they  might  pretend  to 
vye  with  St.  Paid,  in  the  miraculous  Cure  of 
diftempered  Perfons,  in  the  Name  of  'J ejus. 
But  for  Men  of  Senfe  to  endeavour  to  account 
for  thefe  Practices  of  Cheats,  I  mean  for  Won- 
ders and  prodigious  Cures  done,  by  Sounds,  and 
Charms  of  Words,  and  fuch  Sort  of  magical 
Operation,  is,  methinks,  to  promote  the  Cheat, 
and  to  encourage  the  World  to  confult  In- 
chanters,  and  Witches,  and  Wizards,  and  Ne- 
cromancers, notwithftanding  it  is  faid  fo 
exprefHy,  that  they  which  do  fuch  Things  are 
an  Ahoinination  to  the  Lord,  Deut.  xviii.  12. 

The  Place  where  thefe  Sons  of  Sceva  pretend- 
ed to  caft  out  Devils  by  the  Name  of  J  ejus,  viz. 
Rphefus,  puts  me  in  Mind  of  the  Ephefian 
Letters  which  Plutarch  in  his  Sympofiacs  fays, 
f  the  Magicians  commanded  Juch  as  were  pojjej- 

f  'Oi  Viccyoi  T8<;  ^xif^ov^cfjoiva^  KiXzvucri   rcc  Z<pi<nx  ypxfAfAxrx 
jrps  ec;jTX<i  xxrxAiyuv  ^  ovoujaQiv.    Plut.  SyiDpof  Lib.  vii.  c.  5. 

fed 


(  6i  ) 

fed  by  Devils  [or  Demons]  to  read  over,  and 
pronounce,  when  they  were  by  them/elves.  Ridi- 
culous Words!  Senfelefs  Sounds!  fit  to  cheat  the 
ignorant  with!  They  are  of  the  fame  Stamp 
with  the  famous  Abracadabra,  or  Abraxas,  and 
a  thoufand  others.  The  Reader  may  fee  the  ori- 
ginal Ephefean  Words,  (for  fome  Cheats  had  af- 
terwards added  others  to  them,)  in  Hefychius,  * 
3  Aax.h  KoLToLcnth  Ai^>  Terpcc^,  Actfxy afjLinv$,  Aujw. 
They  are  juft  fuch  Cant  Words  as  now  our  ftrol- 
ling  Gypiies  ufe:  by'Aoxi  they  meant  Darknefs, 
KctTctcx,*  Light,  by  Ai'£,  He;  AoLfxvd^nv^ fignifi- 
ed  the  Sim,  and  Amov,  True;  as  for  Terpen^  it  is 
not  explained.  This  will  fhew  fufficiently,  what 
Eufebius  has  obferved  in  his  Praparatio  Evan- 
gelica,  Lib.  3.  c,  1.  That  thefe  Impoftors 
when  they  did  any  thing,  h  made  life  of  certain 
Charms  with  unintelligible,  inarticulate,  and 
barbarous  Sounds. 

It  is  eafy  from  the  Inftances  produced  to 
underftand  any  other  Cafe  which  the  New 
Teftament  Writers  mention.  Their  Demo- 
niacks  are  much  the  fame  with  the  Cerriti, 
or  Larvati,  or  Lymphatici,  of  the  antient 
Romans,  or  with  thofe  whofe  Diforders  are 
mentioned  by  Hippocrates,  as  coming  from 
the  Gods.     Not  that  any  of  the  Antients  could 

S  Evince,  ypcc[Jt/[//oiTc6,  w  [Aiv  xuXcti,  v^cv  <^«  7TfocriQi(rccv  riisq 
uz-ccTtavis  y^  etXXa,.  <pct(noi  rm  Ttyoirwv  rx  ovof//urx  ra'is.  plg-xi,  &c. 
Hef)cbius. 

h  Mtru  rty<&>  arr^w  xj  QxfaptKvis  \mi\wu>>^  Euf.  Prae.  Evan. 
1   3.  c.  I. 

prove, 


(  62  ) 

prove,  that  thofe  whom  they  called  Demoni- 
acks,  or  Cerriti,  or  Larvati,  were  really  pof- 
feded  by  the  Souls  of  G?m,  or  Apollo,  &c.  or 
by  the  Larva.  Thefe  Terms  might  imply  an 
Hypothefis  originally,  in  order  to  account  for 
certain  Diforders  -,  but  they  do  not  imply  the 
Truth  of  Things.  And  when  once  Words  are 
applied  to  fuch  or  fuch  Diforders,  every  Man 
that  fpeaks  of  fuch  Cafes  muft  ufe  the  tecni- 
cal  Terms,  and  cannot  with  any  Juftice  be 
deemed  to  approve  the  Hypothefis,  becaufe 
he  fpeaks  as  Cuftom  has  made  it  necefTary. 

But  againft  this  way  of   interpreting  the 
Scripture,  it  is  obje&ed 

Firft,  that  the  Scriptures  and  Eccleliaftical 
Writers  make  a  conftant  and  a  plain  Diftinc- 
tion  betwixt  thefe  two  things,  the  curing  of 
Difeafes,  and  the  cafting  out  Devils.  Thus 
Matt.  iv.  24,  They  brought  to  him  alljick  Peo- 
ple that  were  taken  with  diver fe  Difeafes,  and 
thofe  which  were  pofjeffed  with  Devils ;  and 
thofe  which  were  Lunatick,  and  thofe  that  had 
the  Palfy.  So  likewife,  Matt.  x.  1.  He  gave 
to  the  Difciples  Power  againft  unclean  Spirits 
io  cajl  them  oat,  and  to  heal  all  Manner  of 
Sickncfs  and  Difeafes.  And  Mark  i.  34.  Our 
Saviour  beheld  many  that  were  lick  of  diver  fe 
Dijeafes,  and  cajl  out  many  Devils.  And 
thus  too  Luke  iv.  40,  41.  All  they  that  had 
any  fick  with  diverfe  Di /cafes  brought  them  un-. 
to  him ;  and  he  laid  his  Hands  on  every  one  of 

them 


(  63 

them  and  healed  them,  and  Devils  alfo  came 
out  of  many  crying  out  a?id  faying,  Thou  art 
Chrijl  the  Son  of  God.  To  all  this  the  An- 
fvver  is  obvious, 

That  what  is  ufually  called  PoJfeJJton  of  De- 
vils, is  no  more  to  be  diftinguifhed  from  Dif- 
eafe,  or  Sicknefs,  than  the  Palfy  is,  which  in 
the  very  firft  Citation  from  St.  Matthew  is 
put  in  the  fame  Manner  as  Lunacy  is,  and  is 
contradiftinguifhed  from  Difeafes.  In  truth, 
the  proper  Rendring  is,  He  cured  all  that  were 
taken  with  diverfe  Difeafes,  even  Demoniacks, 
Lunaticks,  and  Paralyticks.  In  the  other 
Paffages  the  Senfe  is  very  clear :  He  gave  the 
Difciples  Power  over  unclean  Spirits,  and  not 
only  that  Power,  but  likewife  to  heal  all  other 
Diftempers.  As  to  Himfelf,  our  Saviour  cu- 
red the  fick,  and  likewife  all  Sorts  of  Luna- 
cy. Lunacy  or  Madnefs  is  a  Difeafe  which 
appears  in  different  Shapes :  l  Some  are  merry, 
fome  are  fad,  feme  are  eafily  kept  within  Bounds, 
and  are  only  mad  in  their  Words  ;  others  are 
furious  and  outragious,  and  of  thefe  fome  only 
offend  in  ufing  Violence,  others  apply  Arts, 
and  look  and  a£i  as  if  they  were  in  their  Senfes 

1  Alii  hilares,  alii  trifles  {lint,  alii  facilius  continentur,  et  in- 
tra verba  defipiunt,  alii  infurgunt,  et  violenter  quaedam  manu 
faciunt,  atque  ex  his  iplis  alii  nihil  nifi  impetu  peccant,  alii  eti- 
am  artes  adhibent  fummamque  fpeciem  fanitatis  in  captandis  ma- 
lorum  operum  occafionibus  prsebent,  fed  exitu  deprehenduntur. 
Ctlfui  lib.  5.  c.  18. 

only 


(  64  ) 

onh  to  catch  an  Opportunity  of  doing  Mi/chief: 
Hie  Difference  betwixt  them  is  difcovered  by 
the  Event ;  as  Celfus  has  rightly  obferved.  It 
is  very  hard  to  cure  this  Diftemper  by  natural 
Means ;  and  fo  it  is  to  cure  the  Palfy  :  They 
who  are  afflicted  with  it  k  feldom  are  brought 
to  be  well  again,  and  generally  drag  on  a  mife- 
rable  Life,  lofmg  their  Memories  :  Sometimes 
it  is  acute  in  particular  Members  -,  often  it  is 
a  long  Dijeafe  -y  commonly  it  is  an  incurable 
me.  Celfus  lib.  3.  c.  27.  The  Meaning  there- 
fore of  thefe  Paffages  is,  That  our  Saviour 
healed  all  Sorts  of  lick  Perfons;  even  thofe 
that  were  mod  difficult  to  cure. 

If  it  be  faid,  that  the  Scriptures  not  only 
make  a  Diftinction  betwixt  curing  Difeafes, 
and  cajling  out  Devils ;  but  likewife  in  this 
Paflage  of  St.  Matthew  betwixt  thofe  that 
were  poftffed  with  Devils,  and  thofe  that  were 
Lunaticks.     I  might  anfwer, 

That  "Theophyladl  did  not  read  in  his  Copy 

thofe  Words, And  thofe  which  were  poffef- 

fed  with  Devils :  And  it  is  plain  they  are 
wanting  in  fome  MSS.  v.  Mills  in  he.     In 

fome  Copies  which  have  the  Words And 

thofe  which  were  poffeffed  with  Devils — ; — the 
following  ones And  thofe  which  were  Lu- 

k  Raro  ad  fanitttcm  perveniunt,  et  plerumquc  mifcrum  fpiri- 
tum  trahunt,  memoria  quoquc  aniiiia.  In  partibus  nonnun- 
quam  acutus ;  fope  longus;  fcrc  inianabilis  cit  morbus.  Ibid. 
1.  3.  c.  27. 

naticks 


(65  ) 

natich  are   omitted.     But  fay  that  the 

common  Reading  is  the  true  one,  it  amounts 
to  no  more  than  this,  That  our  Saviour  cured 
all  Sorts  of  Madnejs,  whencefoever  it  arofe, 
whether  it  were  from  Melanchply,  or  from 
any  other  Caufe.     It  is  objected, 

Secondly,  "  The  Difference  betwixt  Demo- 
"  niacks  and  Lunaticks  is  evident  from  the 
Circumftances  relating  to  the  Devils  to  be, 
or  that  a&ually  were,  call  out.  e.  g.  Chrifl 
fuffered  not  the  Devils  to  fpeak,  becauje 
they  knew  him  to  be  the  Chrift,  Mark  i.  34. 
Luke  iv.  41.  They  faid,  Thou  art  the 
Chrift,  the  Son  of  God :  They  expoftulate 
with  Chrift,  faying,  What  have  we  to  do 
"  with  thee  ?  Art  thou  come  to  torment  us  be- 
"  fore  the  Time  ?  and  pray  that  he  would  not 
"  torment  them :  They  afk  his  Leave  to  en- 
"  ter  into  the  Swine  ;  and  being  entered,  they 
hurried  them  into  the  Sea ;  and  beg  that 
they  may  not  be  fent  out  of  the  Country  ; 
They  acknowledge  that  their  Name  was 
Legion.  Now  to  make  all  thefe  Sayings 
the  Effedts  of  a  Difeafe,  or  to  conceive  that 
Chrift  [poke  thus  to  a  Difeafey  is  too  great 


it 
ci 
cc 

cc 

i( 
cc 


cc 

cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 
cc 

"  an  Evidence  of  one  that  is  himfelf  Difea- 
"  fed." 

As  this  is  the  principal  Objeftion,  I  muft 
be  more  particular  in  my  Anfwer.     And 

Firft,  It  is  faid  that  Chrift  fuffered  not  the 
Devils  to  fpeak  becaufe  they  knew  him  to  be  the 
Chrifl,     The  plain  Meaning  of  thefe  Texts  is, 

K  that 


(  66  ) 

that  he  checked  the  Demoniacks  whom  he  cu^ 
red,  juft  as  he  did  likewife  his  immediate  Dif- 
ciplcs  and  Followers,  if  at  any  time  they  pub- 
lickly  and  openly  declared  him  to  be  the 
Chrift.  It  would  be  foreign  to  the  prefent 
Pnrpofe  to  confider  the  Reafon  of  this  Con- 
duct in  our  Saviour  ;  and  it  has  been  fully  and 
fatisfa&orily  fhewn  by  Others.  When  a  pof- 
fejj'ed  Perfon,  i.  e.  a  Lunatkkx  declared  Jefus 
to  be  the  Chrift,  and  with  an  Unguardednefs 
ufual  to  fuch  Men  faid,  what  might  expofe 
him  to  Danger,  and  even  Death,  before  his 
Time  wTas  come,  it  was  right  to  rebuke  them, 
and  not  to  fuffer  them  to  talk  in  that  Manner, 

Again,  'Tis  faid,  Jefus  rebuked  the  Devils, 
Luke  iv.  41.  Now  to  conceive  that  he  Jpoke 
to  a  Di/ea/e,  is  abfurd. 

The  Anfwer  is  very  obvious ;  fince  the  fame 
Manner  of  Expreffion,  nay  the  fame  Word,  g?re- 
•njutyre,  is  applied  to  a  Di/eaje  but  two  Verfes  be- 
fore, which  is  here  applied  to  Devils,  i.  e.  Madnefs. 
He  rebuked  the  Fever  in  Peter's  Wife's  Mother, 
is  no  harder  to  be  understood,  than  He  rebuked 
Madneji,  the  one  being  as  much  a  Difeafe  as  the 
other.  If  by  rebuking  Devils,  or  Demons,  be 
meant,  His  not  fuffering  them  to  fiiy  Who  he 
was,  This  has  already  been  confidered.  But  I 
muft  add,  that  the  Romans  confidered  Fever , 
as  a  certain  Being  to  which  they  x  built  Altars 

Inrvetni  flat  in  Marie  Feb' is.     Cicero  de  legibus.     'Va^xH- 
..  It^pcvj  luvri.     Ckmcvs  Protnpt.     'Cjs   iv  p«pj|  jr^i»S  P*f*i* 

Jrrimh  in  Epifr.  1.  i.e.  19. 

and 


(  67  ) 

and  facrificed.  In  this  Cafe,  to  rebuke  &  Fe- 
ver is  exactly  the  fame  with  rebuking  a  Devil. 
Each  was  in  reality  nothing  but  a  Difeafe , 
and  yet  each  was  confidered,  and  treated  as 
if  it  were  a  Per/on. 

It  is  faid,  That  the  Devils  cryed  out,  "Thou 
art  the  Chriji  the  Son  of  God.  Anf.  If  the 
Man  that  was  poffeffed,  or  mady  made  fuch 
Declarations  in  Confequence  of  his  Diftem- 
per,  it  may  I  think  in  the  fame  Propriety  be 
attributed  to  the  Diftemper,  as  when  St.  Paul 
fays,  Rom.  vii.  17,  20.  It  is  no  more  I  that  do  ity 
but  Sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  The  Madmen  fpoke 
what  Fame  had  fpread :  For  the  Fame  of  Jefus 
very  foon  went  throughout  all  Syria,  and  great 
Multitudes  of  People  followed  him  from  Galilee, 
and  from  Decapolis,  and  jrom  Jerufalem,  and 
fro?n  Judea,  and  from  beyond  Jordan.  Matt. 
iv.  24,  25.  Now  as  this  Imprudence,  in 
faying  what  our  Saviour's  Circurnftances  would 
not  admit,  was  the  Effect  of  Diftemper  in 
thefe  mad  men,  and  the  Diftemper  was  im- 
puted to  De?nons,  it  was  not  unnatural  to 
forbid  thefe  Demons,  i.  e.  the  Men  who  were 
difordered,  to  publifh  what  was  fo  unfit  and 
improper  to  be  publifhed.  Wherever  Difeafes 
are  treated  as  Perjons,  or  Virtues  or  Vices  are 
confidered  as  fuch,  it  is  always  ufiaal  to  fpeak  to 
them  in  perjonal  Characters.  Thus,  not  to  re- 
peat what  I  juft  now  obferved  about  the  Goddefs 
Fever,  The  Goddefs  Fides  had  a  Temple  built  to 

K  2  her$ 


(68) 

her ;  and  fee  how  me  is  addrefled  in  Plautus's 
Aulularia,  Adt  IV.  Sc.  2.  Eitclio  fays,  m<Take 
heed,  O  Faith,  and  do  not  fhew  any  one  that 
my  Gold  is  there.  And  Strobilus  hearing  him, 
fays,  O  Faith,  Do  not  you  be  more  faithful  to 
him  than  to  me,  &c.  I  mall  presently  take 
Notice  of  an  Inftance,  where  That  is  dire&ly 
imputed  to  a  Devil,  which  could  belong  only 
to  the  Man  that  was  difordered. 

It  is  added  in  the  Objection,  That  the 
Devils  expojlulated  with  Chrift,  faying,  Let 
zis  alone,  What  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou 
Jefus  of  Nazareth :  Art  thou  come  to  deflroy 
US?  I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  one 
cf  God,  Luke  iv.  33,  34.  Mark  i.  23 — 26. 
At  another  Time,  They  cried  out  faying, 
What  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  Jefus  thou  Son 
of  God  ?  Art  thou  come  hither  to  torment  us 
before  the  Time  ?  Matt.  viii.  29. 

In  the  lirft  of  thefe  Places,  I  cannot  but 
take  Notice  of  a  very  extraordinary  Change  of 

m  Euclia.  Tu  modo  cave  cuiquam  indicaffis,  aurum  meum 
eft  ifthic,  Fides. 

■  Verum  id  te  quaefo  ut  prohibeffis,  Fides. 
Vide,   Fides,  etiam  atque  etiam  nunc,   falvam  ut  aulam 

abs  te  auferam. 
Tuae  Fidei  concredidi  aurum :  in  tuo  luco  et  fano  modo 

eft  fitum. 

Strob.  ■  ■      Fides, 

Cave  tu  illi  iidelis,  quaefo,  potius  fueris,  quam  mihi. 

■  ■  per fcru  tabor,  ft  inveniam  ufpiam 

Aurum,  dum  hie  eft  occupatus :  fed  ft  repperero,  O  Fides, 
MuJfi  congialem  plenam  faciam  tibi  fideliam. 

Plaut.  Aulul  Aft.  iv.  Sc.  2. 

Ptrfins, 


(  69  ) 

Perfons.  The  Man  which  had  A  Spirit  of 
an  unclean  Devil,  fays,  Let  us  alone,  What 
have  We  to  do  with  thee ?  Art  thou  come  to 
deflroy  U  s  f  I  know  thee  who  thou  art.  And 
Jefus  rebuked  H  i  m,  faying,  hold  Thy  Peace. 
Would  any  but  a  mad  man  have  reafoned 
thus?  Had  he  nothing  to  do  with  the  Holy 
one  of  God,  who  was  already  fo  famous  for 
his  curing  all  Manner  of  Difeafes  ?  Or  why 
is  it  faid,  Art  thou  come  to  deflroy  Us,  fince 
the  Man  had  but  One  unclean  Spirit  ?  If  it  be 
faid,  that  the  Word  Us,  relates  to  the  Man, 
and  the  unclean  Spirit,  in  what  Senfe  did  the 
Holy  one  of  God  come  to  deflroy  the  Man  ?  I 
add 

2.  That  the  Evangelifts  fometimes  impute 
that  to  the  Caufe  of  a  Difeafe  which  is  proper 
and  peculiar  only  to  the  Man  who  is  diftem- 
pered  :  They  impute  that  to  Devils  which 
the  Man  alone  could  do.  And  therefore  if  it 
be  faid  in  fome  Places,  that  Devils  expoftu- 
lated  with  Chrift,  That  may  be  underftood 
of  the  Man  expoftulating  ;  jult  as  when  that 
is  imputed  to  Devils  which  does  not,  or  can- 
not, belong  to  them.  e.  g.  St.  Mark  fays, 
c.  iii.  1 1.  Unclean  Spirits  when  they  saw  him, 
Fell  down  before  him,  and  cried,  faying, 
Thou  art  the  Son  of  God.  Unclean  Spirits 
law  him,  and  fell  down!  No.  The  Perfons 
who  had  the  Diforders  imputed  to  unclean 
Spirits  did  fo.     Jufl  in  the  fame  Manner  as 

Devils 


(?o) 

Devils  fall  down  before  him,  did  they  cry  out 
or  expoftulate  with  Chrift  -y  i.  e.  The  Perfong 
v,  ho  were  fo  or  fo  affected  did  fo. 

It  was  a  Remark  made  at  leaft  as  long  ago 
as  the  Author  of  the  Queftions  and  Anjwers  to 
the  Orthodox ',  ufually  annexed  to  Jujiin  Mar- 
tyr,  *  That  the  Scripture  attributes  to  the  De~ 
moniatk  the  Works  of  the  Demon.  The  Re- 
verie of  this  is  as  true.  That  the  Scriptures 
attribute  to  Demons  the  A6ts  of  the  Demoni- 
ack:  which  fhews,  that  in  thefe  Cafes,  we 
are  not  to  regard  the  Letter,  but  the  real  and 
exact  Meaning  of  the  Sacred  Writers. 

To  account  fully  for  all  the  Difficulties  in 
the  Other  PafTage,  Matt.  viii.  29,  and  the 
correfponding  Places  in  the  Other  Evangelifts^ 
is  fomcthing  more  hard.  It  has  been  already 
obferved,  that  when  the  Man  faid,  that  a 
Legion  of  Devils  was  in  him,  This  was  nothing 
but  the  Anfwer  of  a  Madman  to  our  Saviour 
that  afked  him  his  Name.  It  is  generally  fup- 
pofcd  that  in  this  Story,    it  was  the  Devils 

which  cryed  out, Art  thou  come  hither  to 

torment  us  before  the  Time.  But  there  is  no 
Neceffity  for  this  ConftrucYion ;  and  it  is 
plain  that  both  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  expreff- 
ly  afcribe  this  Declaration  to  the  Man  himfelf. 
St.  Mark's  Words  are,  ch.  v.  6,  7,  When  [the 

X.  et  Pvcip.  ad  Orthod.  Qux.  41. 

Man] 


(  *i  ) 

Man]  He  faw  Jefus  afar  off,  he  ran  and 
worJJjipped  him,  and  cryed  out  with  a  loud 
Voice ,  and  faid — — i"  adjure  thee  that  thou 
torment  me  not.  St.  Luke  expreffes  himfelf 
in  the  very  fame  Manner — — When  He  Jaw 
Jefus,  he  cried  out,  and  fell  down  before  him, 
and  with  a  loud  Voice  faid,  What  have  I  to  do 

with  thee 1  befeech  thee  torment  me  not, 

Luke  viii.  28.  St.  Matthew  relates  this  of 
Two  Men  ,  and  therefore  confidently  with  his 

Narration,   he  fays -Art  thou  co?7ie  hitter 

to  torment  U  s.  The  Reafon  of  the  Man's, 
or  Men's,  making  this  Requeft,  feems  to  be, 
that  they  remembred  the  ill  Ufage  they  had 
formerly  met  with,  when  they  were  bound 
with  Chains  and  Fetters :  and  confiftent  with 
that  Notion,  they  beg  of  Chrifr.  that  he  would 
not,  iScto-otv/crccf,  torment,  or  vex  them.  Bzvol- 
vio-oli,  which  we  interpret  to  torment,  fignifies 
not  only  to  torment  in  the  way  of  Punifh- 
ment,  or  to  extort  the  Truth,  but  is  ufed  in 
general  in  any  way  to  vex,  or  put  to  trouble  ; 
and  figuratively  it  is  ufed  in  Cafes  where  it 
fignifies  no  more  than  trying  any  thing  as  with 
or  by  a  Touchftone.  In  this  place  the  Senfe 
is  plain;  The  Men  who  had  felt  the  Pain 
and  Anguifh  arifing  from  being  fetter  d  and 
chain'd,  defire  that  Jejus  would  not  put  them 
to  that  Torment  again. 

There  is  another  Difficulty  in  Relation  to 
this  Story;    and  that  is,   It  is  faid  that  the 

Devils 


(  72  ) 

Devils  bcfought  him,  that  he  would  not  command 
them  to  go  into  the  Deep,  Luke  viii.  31.  St 
Mark  fays,  He,  that  is,  the  Man,  hefought  him 
much  that  He  [Jefus]  would  not  fend  them  away 
out  of  the  Country,  ch.  v.  10.     In  fome  Copies 

of  St.  Mark  it  is that  He  would  not  fend 

him,  i.e.  the  unclean  Spirit,  out  of  the  Country. 
The  Lunatick  had  faid  that  his  Name  was 
Legion ;  that  he  had  many  Devils  in  him ,  and 
he  had  defired  that  thofe  things  which  he  cal- 
led Devils,  might  enter  into  the  Herd  of 
Swine.  Thefe  were  Inftances  of  exceffive 
Madnefs,  and  that  the  Diforder  was  in  a  high 
Degree  upon  him.  The  Requeft  here  made 
was  another  Inftance  of  the  fame  Kind,  that 
Chrift  would  not  command  them  to  go  into  the 
great  Abyfs.  Had  he  been  in  a  right  Mind 
at  this  Time,  would  he  have  defired  the 
Company  of  fuch  malicious  Beings  near  him- 
felf,  or  near  his  Neighbours  ?  Or  would  he 
not  have  defired  them  to  be  fent  into  the  deep, 
or  any  where  elfe  rather  than  continue  in  his 
Country  ?  The  Hiftory  of  this  Cure  therefore 
feems  to  me  to  be  thus.  When  This  Man, 
who  was  not  in  his  right  Mind,  faw  Jefus, 
he  ran  and  worshipped  him  :  Jefus  upon  this 
commanded  the  Diforder  to  ceafe :  Before  this 
ErFecl:  was  produced,  or  whilft  the  Madman 
was  before  our  Saviour,  He  requefted  that  Je- 
fus would  not  command  the  Devils  (which 
were^  as  he  faid,  many  that  were  entred  intd 

him^ 


(  n  J 

him)  to  go  into  the  Deep.,  and  feeing  the 
Swine  there,  he  befought  him  that  he  would 
fuffer  the  Devils  to  go  into  Them.  This  was 
all  the  Effect  of  high  Madnefs ;  and  natural 
upon  that  Suppofition :  It  was  as  natural  for 
fuch  a  Man,  or  Men,  to  run  amongft  the 
Herd  and  drive  them  down  the  Precipice; 
And  when  this  Mifehief  was  thus  done  by  the 
Madmen,  could  any  thing,  after  they  were 
brought  to  a  right  Mind,  be  more  natural, 
than  for  them  to  defire  to  be  taken  along  with 
"J ejus,  when  he  left  that  Country  ? 

Another  Difficulty  in  relation  to  this  Cure 
is,  That,  Matt.  viii.  29,  The  Madmen  fay 
to  Chrift,  Art  thou  come  hither  to  torment  U  s 
before  the  time?  When  it  is  alked^  What 
'Time?  the  common  Anfwer  is,  Before  the 
time  of  the  Day  of  Judgment,  until  which 
the  Evil  Angels  are  referved  i?i  Chains  wider 
Darknejs.  2  Pet.  ii.  4.  Jude  6.  I  am  apt  tcr 
think,  that  this  Paflage  may  more  juftly  and 
confidently  be  accounted  for  thus.  When 
the  Men  faw  our  Saviour,  ( known  fufficient- 
ly  thereabouts,  and  famed  for  curing  all  Dif- 
orders)  they  cried  out,  Art  thou  come  2h  hi- 
ther, viz.  into  the  Country  of  the  Gergejenes, 
0  tog}  Koupii,  ante  tempus,  i.  e.  unfeafonably, 
fooner  than  was  expecled  or  defired,  to  vex  us  t 
Or  it  may  be,  Art  thou  come ,  °  thus}  after 


0  ppoA/poy,  Tpa  xxips.     Hejycb. 

p    Qfe,  QvTtoc,:  s/g  t£tov  rev    rporov,     Hsftch* 


this 


(  74  ) 

this  manner,  untimely,  to  torment  us?  In  this 
Senfe  ^o»  Kcupx  will  be  oppofed  to  h  jtaipS, 
or  Itc\  x.cLipvr  or  d$  ncupov,  which  fignify  op- 
portunely, or  feajbnably 3  and  will  be  the  fame 
as  'zs^cepo?,  or  ax&lpoos,  untimely,  unfeajonably. 
But  this  I  fubmit,  as  I  do  whatever  I  have 
faid  on  this  Subject,  to  the  Judgment  of  the 
candid  Reader,  who  will  take  the  trouble  of 
examining  and  confidering  all  the  Circum- 
ftances  of  this  Cure,  which  on  all  imaginable 
Schemes  mull  be  allowed  to  be  attended  with 
fome  Difficulties. 

A  Third  Objection  is  taken  from  hence, 
That  Chrift  fometimes  puts  Queftions  to  thefe 
Demons,  afking  their  Names :  Sometimes  he 
commands  them  to  be  Jilent :  And  fometimes 
to  come  out  of  a  Man,  and  enter  no  more  into 
him.  v.  Mark  i.  25.    Luke  iv.  31.    Mark  ix. 

25-  1 

The  Anfwer  to  thcfe  Difficulties  is  eafily 

collected  from  what  has  been  already  faid. 
e.  g.  He  did  not  afk  the  Devil,  but  the  difor- 
dered  Man,  his  Name  :  When  the  Man  faw 
Jcfus,  He  cryed  aloud And  Jefus  faid  un- 
to Him,  what  is  Thy  Name.  When  in  St. 
Luke  it  is  (aid,  Devils  came  out  of  ma- 
ny\  crying  out  and  faying,  Thou  art  Chrijl 
the  Son  of  God;  and  he  rebuking  them,  fuffer- 
ed  them  not  to  fpeak,  or  to  fay  that  they  knew 

him   to  he    the  Chrijt, The   Meaning  is, 

He  rebuked  the  Perfons  who  had  fuch  Difor- 

ders 


(75  ) 

ders  upon  them,  when  he  cured  them ;  nor 
would  he  fuffer  them  to  publifh  openly  that 
he  was  the  Chriji,  When  it  is  faid,  that  Devils 
were  commanded  to  come  out  of  a  Man,  it  is 
the  fame  Sort  of  Language  with  rebuking  a  Fe- 
ver :  which  if  any  one  fhould  take  too  rigidly, 
it  would  imply  the  Fever  likewife  to  be  an  intel- 
ligent Being,  or  a  Goddefs  as  the  Romans  made  it. 
The  Meaning  therefore  of  fuch  Expreflions  is 
no  more  than,  "  Be  thou  cured-,  or  be  free  from 
"  this  Diforder."  Thefe  Diforders  being  fup- 
pofed,  poflibly,  to  arife  immediately  from  De- 
mons refiding  in,  and  working  upon  the  Body,  it 
was  natural  enough  to  fpeak  as  to  them,  and  to 
command  them :  Whereas  when  now  thofe 
Cafes  are  looked  upon  as  proceeding  from  dif- 
ferent Caufes,  the  Language  muft  neceflarily 
be  changed,  and  it  muft  found  harfh  to  our 
Ears.  When  the  Gods  were  fuppofed  to  in- 
habit any  Statue,  the  People  made  no  Scruple 
of  addreffing  them  as  in  that  Statue  j  they  fpoke 
to  them  in  that ;  and  worfhipped  them  in 
that ;  and  implored  their  Aid  from  that ;  and 
Cuftom  made  it  eafy  and  familiar  to  them  to 
do  fo.  But  to  Us  the  Language  and  the  No- 
tion being  rare,  we  think  it  harfh  to  talk  of 
rebuking  a  Fever,  or  to  fpeak  to  Demons, 
when  we  know  that  the  Diforder  is  owing  to 
quite  a  different  Caufe. 

L  2  A  Fourth 


A  Fourth  Objection  is,  that  theft  Demonic 
acks  were  of  fuch  Strength,  that  no  Chains  ox 
Fetters  could  bind  them.  Mark  v.  3.  Nor  is  it 
poffible  for  Difeafes  to  fear  to  be  deftroyed,  or 
fent  out  of  the  Country ',  or  into  the  Abyfs,  by 
Chrift,  fince  this  is  an  Abfurdity  that  ftrikes 
one  at  the  firft  Sight. 

It  is  eafy  to  anfwer  to  this    that  thefe  Ex- 

prefiions, no  Man  could  bind  him,  no  not  with 

Fetters, — can  mean  no  more  than  this,  that  the 
difordered  Perfon  had  been  often  bound  with 
Fetters  and  Chains,  and  he  had  often  broke 
loofe.  There  needs  no  {training  of  Words  to 
anfwer  this  >  And  as  to  the  other  Part  of  the 
Objection,  it  is  founded  upon  miftaking  the 
Texts,  as  has  been  fliewn. 

I  know  not  by  what  Authority  the  Author 
of  the  Quejlions  a?id  Anfwer s  to  the  Orthodox 
afferts,  that  mthe  Demon  did  not  enable  the 
Man  to  break  his  Chains  and  Fetters,  but  the 
Demon  himfelf  broke  them.  This  is  owing  to 
an  Hypothefis,  which  has  been  (hewn  fufficir 
ently  to  be  groundlefs. 

But  the  haft  Objection  appears  to  have  fome 
Weight  in  it,  viz.  Why  would  jfefus  counte- 
nance fuch  a  Notion  as  this,  if  there  were  really 
no  fuch  things  as  Demons,  nor  Perfons  pofieffed 

9  'Ou  reo  (rarf/jctTi  ■xxpi^iv  o  oxifjj&v  mv  ^uvxfjuw  ?rpo$  to  otivx&xt 

cxipuv  <rv>tTfi£t  xj  elifffXTi  roe,  Ma-px  xj  txc,  aXvcu^  it  xj  i  Sui* 
'/tx<p*  t(S  ^xtu/ovtmri  Tpo(r>j4'i  t£  ^xlfJboyd^  Tec  *jpy«e.  Qucft.  Ct 
Refp,  ad  Orthodoxos.  Refp.  41, 

by 


(  77  ) 

by  them  ?  Why  would  he  not  rid  Men  of 
fuch  pernicious  Opinions,  and  plainly  tell 
them,  that  thefe  PqffeJJtons  were  nothing  elfe 
but  Lunacy  or  Epilepfy,  or  whatever  other 
Name  the  Diforder  had  ? 

To  this  I  anfwer,  that  no  Man  conceives  the 
Defign  of  the  facred  Writings  to  be  to  corredl 
the  Miftakes  of  Men  in  Phyfick,  more  than  it 
is  in  Aftronomy,  or  any  other  Art :  No  nor  is 
it  its  Defign  to  guard  againfl  wrong  Notions 
of  God  himfelf.  It  fpeaks  of  God  in  the 
Language  of  the  Vulgar,  in  a  figurative  man- 
ner, and  fuppofes  all  Men  to  have  fuch  com- 
mon reafonable  Notions  of  him,  as  not  to 
underftand  literally  what  is  faid  of  his  Hands 
and  Ears  and  Eyes.  It  fpeaks  of  the  Motion  of 
the  Sun,  and  the  Reft  of  the  Earth ;  and  yet  it 
is  now  univerfally  known  that  that  is  a  ground- 
lefs  Hypothefis.  And  fo  here  \  It  was  the  mira- 
culous Cure  which  our  Saviour  did,  the  Cure 
of  all  Sorts  of  Diftempers,  whatever  they 
were,  and  how  long  foever  they  had  continu- 
ed, which  was  the  thing  by  which  he  evinced 
what  he  was :  But  as  to  the  Caufe  of  fuch  DiC. 
orders,  it  was  of  no  Confequence  to  his  De- 
fign to  explain  them.  This  was  what  indeed 
the  Philofophers  of  oldexpedled:  They  fee  k 
after  Wifdom,  fays  St.  Pauly  i  Cor.  i.  22.  But 
what  was  foreign  to  our  Saviour's  Purpofe  he 
very  wifely  avoided^  content  with  what  would 

prove 


(78) 

prove  him  to  be  Chrijt  the  Power  and  the  Wif- 
dom  of  God. 

And  now  to  refume  the  Questions  propo- 
fed  at  firft,  the  Anfwer  to  them  is  very  eafy. 
How  comes  it  to  pais  that  we  read  of  fo  ma- 
ny Perfons  juft  at  the  particular  Time  of  our 
Saviour's  Appearance  under  the  Power  of  De- 
vils ? 

Anfwer.  We  meet  with  no  more  at  that 
Time,  than  we  meet  with  now  \  or  than  were 
in  Being  at  all  Times  equally,  and  will  be  al- 
ways, when  their  Cafe  is  rightly  underftood. 

^  Whence  is  it  that  we  fo  rarely  meet 
with  Accounts  of  the  fame  Diforders  amongft 
Men,  either  before •>  or  after,  the  Times  of 
our  Saviour  ? 

A.  The  Instances  produced  of  Perfons  fup^ 
pfed  to  be  poffefled  by  the  Gods,  fhew  that 
there  were  always  fuch  like  Cafes  in  the 
World.  The  Philofophy  of  the  Antients 
was  entirely  groundlefs  in  thefe  Matters  -,  and 
now  their  Language,  founded  on  their  Hy- 
pothefes,  is  made  the  Foundation  of  the  pre- 
sent Confufion  in  Men's  Minds. 

5^,  Whence  was  it  that  God  permitted  fo 
much  Power  to  fuch  unclean  Spirits,  who 
feem  to  delight  in  doing  Mifchief  ? 

A.  God  did  not  permit  in  Fact  any  fuch 
Power  as  is  imagined  to  unclean  Spirits :  nor 
was  there  any  Initance  of  unclean  Spirits  ha- 
ving 


(  79  ) 

ving  fuch  Power  over  the  Bodies  of  Men,  when 
the  Cafe  comes  to  be  examined  thoroughly. 

^  What  then  were  thofe  PoJJejfions  which 
are  fo  frequent  in  the  New  Teftament  ? 

A.  They  appear  all  to  be  fuch  Cafes  of 
Madnefs,  or  of  Epilepfy,  as  all  the  Antients 
agreed  in  imputing  to  their  Gods,  or  Demons. 
The  New  Teftament  Writers  made  ufe  of  the 
Terms  and  Language  ufual  in  their  Times : 
And  as  the  Hypothefes  they  then  had  in  Phi* 
lofophy  equally  ferved  the  Purpofe  of  our  Sa- 
viour in  his  great  Defigns,  as  the  very  exadteft 
Truth  would  have  done,  it  had  been  to  no 
Purpofe  for  him  to  have  engaged  in  Difputes, 
or  to  have  oppofed  the  received  Notions.  His 
Caufe  would  not  have  been  in  a  better  Way  ; 
nor  would  the  Caufe  of  the  One  God  in  Op- 
pofition  to  Idolatry ;  or  of  Religion  and  Vir- 
tue in  Oppofition  to  Vice,  have  been  better 
promoted,  by  refuting  the  Demonology  then 
received,  than  by  ufing  the  common  ordinary 
Language:  it  was  enough  that  our  Saviour 
{hewed  a  Power  over  all  that  was  before  Him, 
and  cured  the  Difeafes  with  a  Word,  which 
to  every  body  elfe  were  incurable* 


FINIS. 


:^ 


A  N 


■4/ 


ESSAY 

Towards  Vindicating  the 

LITERAL   SENSE 

O  F    T  H  E 

DEMONIACKS, 

IN     THE 

New  Teftament; 

In  anfwer  to  a  late  Enquiry  into  the 
^y     Meaning   of  them.         *OjS 


'E$-eapxv  tov   (TOLJctvav   ug    d<r^'7rrjv  etc  r£   i&vx 
Treo-Gvja,.      Luke  x.    18. 


LONDON: 

Printed  by   J.  Bettenham, 

And   Sold  by  J,  Roberts,    near   the  Oxford- 
Arms  in  Warwick-Lane.      Mdccxxxvii. 


t  3  3 


A  N 


ESSAY 

Towards  Vindicating  the 

LITERAL    SENSE. 

Of  the    Demoniacks    in   the 
New  Testament,    &c. 


T  is,  no  doubt,  a  very  commendable  Em- 
ployment, and  a  very  ufeful  Defign,  W 
endeavour  to  clear  up  the  Difficulties  of 
Scripture s  to  let  in  Light  to  any  of  its  darkPaf- 
fages,  to  folve  the  Doubts,  and  anfwer  the  Ob- 
jections, which  may  have  been  raifed,  concern- 
ing  them.  And  it  is  as  unqueftionably  our  Du- 
ty to  receive  fuch  Interpretations,  as  contribute 
moft  to  thefe  Ends,  5/  nufquam  occulta  ejfet 
Scriptural  non  te  exerceret.  For  thefe,.  as  well 
as  other  Reafons?    God  might  pleafe  to  leave 

A  a  fome 


[4] 

fome  Difficulties  in  the  Sacred  Writings,  to  ex- 
ercife  our  Diligence  in  enquiring,  and  to  try  our 
Honefty,  in  adhering  to  what,  upon  Enquiry, 
appears  beft. 

It  is  more  to  be  defired,  than  expected,  to  be 
able,  in  every  Cafe,  to  hit  on  an  Interpretation, 
which  is  perfectly  fatisfa£tory,  and  which  leaves 
no  juft  room  for  any  farther  Contention. 
There  are  Places  capable  of  feveral  Senfes,  for 
all  of  which  a  great  deal  may  be  faid;  and  yet 
not  one  of  them  raife  in  the  Mind  fo  full  an 
Affent,  as  to  put  an  end  to  all  Doubt.  Here,  it 
muft  be  reaibnable  to  examine  carefully  each 
Meaning,  to  weigh  impartially  their  feveral 
Difficulties  and  Advantages,  and  receive  that, 
which,  on  the  whole,  we  find  attended  with 
feweft  Objections,  tho'  it  may  not  be  free  from 
all  Where  we  cannot  come  at  abfolute  Cer- 
tainty, we  muft  be  content  wTith  the  beft  Light 
we  can  get,  and  embrace  what  appears  molt 
probable.  This  will  often  happen  in  our  Study 
of  the  Scriptures ,  of  thofe  Parts  of  them,  which 
do  not  immediately  relate  to  Articles  of  Faith, 
or  Rules  of  Life. 

In  general,  I  believe  it  muft  be  allowed,  that 
the  Prefumption  lies  on  the  Side  of  the  literal 
Meaning  of  any  Book,  This  will  ever  firft  oc- 
cur to  the  Mind  of  the  Reader,  and  feems  to 
claim  his  Attention,  unlefs  it  be  contrary  to  any 
allowed  Principles,  inconfiftent  with  the  rea- 
foning  in  the  fame  Place,  or  with  the  clear  Senfe 
of  the  fame  Book  in  any  other  part.     Indeed, 

if 


(5) 

if  common  Sentiments  be  not  at  all  intelligible,  no 
one  wants  an  Excufi,  for  varying  from  them, 
Enq.  p.  43 ;  and  we  are  at  liberty  to  feek  out 
for,  or  even  to  gnefi  at,  another  Suppolition 
which  is  fo.  And  if  this  Suppofition  he  alfo 
rational,  we  are  obliged  to  receive  it.  But  there 
is  a  wide  difference  between  a  Meaning  s  being 
entirely  unintelligible,  and  its  being  attended 
with  Difficulties.  Our  Ignorance  of  the  Reajbn  is 
no  fort  of  Argument  againft  the  FaSi.  There  are 
few  Truths,  which  we  can  perfectly  account  for. 
Tho'  therefore  the  plain  literal  Meaning  mould 
have  fome  Difficulties,  ftill  it  may  ftand,  and 
thefe  not  be  confiderable  enough  to  difprove  it. 
I  own,  if  another  Senfe  can  be  found  out  clear 
of  all  fuch,  or,  which  has  much  fewer  and  light- 
er, on  the  Comparifon,  it  is  to  be  chofen.  But 
the  Letter  ought  always  to  be  adhered  to,  where 
the  Difficulties  are  equal,  and  much  more, 
where  they  are  greater  on  the  Side  of  the  Fi- 
gure. 

I  am  led  into  thefe  Reflections  by  reading  a 
late  Tract,  entitled,  An  Enquiry  into  the  Mean- 
ing of  Detnoniacks  in  the  New  T'e '/lament.  The 
Author,  or  *  Authors  of  which  have,  with 
Learning  and  Ingenuity,  with  Serioufnefs  and 
Modefty,  endeavoured  to  remove  and  to  clear  up 
a  Difficulty,  which  is  faid  naturally  to  arije  in 
\ 

*  I  mention  this,  merely,  became  the  unufual  Number  of  ini- 
tial Letters  in  the  Title-Page  may  denote  feveral  Hands  concern- 
ed. For  the  future,  I  beg  leave  to  fpeak  of  the  Author,  or  to  ap- 
ply to  him,  in  the  Singular. 

mojl 


(  6  ) 

tob/t  Mens  Minds,  upon  reading  the  Cures  done 
b\  our  Saviour  on  fuch.  (Pref.)  I  am  fo  far  a 
Friend  to  Freedom  of  Debate,  that  I  think,  En- 
quiries made  in  fuch  a  Temper  and  Spirit,  well 
deferve  the  Attention  of  the  Publick,  and  the 
Confideration  of  ferious  and  thinking  Men. 
And  I  flatter  my  felf,  that  this  Gentleman  has 
the  fame  regard  to  Liberty,  and  will excu feme,, 
if  I  make  ufe  of  it,  to  examine  his  Reafons,  and 
to  differ  from  his  Sentiments. 

The  Difficulty  was  raifed  by  the  truly  pious 
and  learned  Mr.  Mede,  and  is  in  effect  this.  If 
the  Demoniacks  were  really  Perfons  pojfejfed  by 
Devils,  whence  came  it  to  pafs,  that  we  hear  of 
them  in  no  other  Nation  or  Age,  but  in  Judea, 
and  there  too,  about  the  Time  of  our  Saviour's 
being  on  Earth,  only  ?  And  farther,  that  then 
this  was  not  looked  upon  as  any  ftrange  or  ex- 
traordinary Thing  ?  In  order  to  avoid  this,  Mr.- 
Mcde  imagined,  that  by  Demoniacks  in  the 
New  Te/lament,  we  are  not  to  underftand  Per-* 
fons  properly  pof/e/Jed,  but  fuch  as  were  afflicted 
with  ibme  particular  Diftempers,  which  the 
World,  milled  by  Prejudices,  looked  upon  as 
proceeding  from  Demons;  fuch  as  Madne/s, 
the  Epihpj.\  and  fuch  like.  This  Scheme  the 
Author  of  the  Enquiry  has  proceeded  upon,  o- 
pened  at  large,  and  applied  to  the  mod  remark- 
able Cafes  of  this  fort  in  the  New  Tefiament. 
And  indeed,  it  effectually  deftroys  the  general 
Difficulty,  and  puts  an  end  to  all  the  Wonder 
which  can  arife  from  thence.    But  the  Queftion 

is, 


(  7  ) 

is,  Whether  it  be  not  liable  to  other  Difficulties, 
more  in  Number,  and  harder  to  be  got  over  ? 
The  common  Sentiment  here  is  very  intelligible^ 
and  ought  therefore  to  keep  its  Ground  againft 
any  Conjectures,  which  may  be  offered  in  its 
room,  if  thefe  are  not  lefs  exceptionable. 

Before  I  go  farther,  it  may  be  proper  to  tefti- 
fy  my  Satisfaction  in  this  Gentleman's  Reafon- 
ing,  in  his  Preface  ;  where  he  fays,  that  "  the 
'  c  Caufe  of  Chrift  is  not  affected  "  by  this  Dif- 
pute.  "  For"  on  both  Suppofitions,  "  a  real 
f*  Miracle  is  done;  the  Perfon  affected  is  cured  ; 
fC  and  the  Evidence  arifing  from  Miracles  for 
"  the  Truth  of  Chriftianity  is  equally  ftrong.  " 
But  then  I  muft  add,  and  I  believe  this  Author 
will  agree  with  me,  on  a  View  of  what  I  mall 
advance,  that  if  it  be  true,  we  have  an  additio- 
nal Evidence  of  our  Religion.  So  that,  by  hi§ 
Scheme,  our  Faith  is  not  hurt,  by  the  com- 
mon one,  it  is  neceffarily  confirmed. 

The  better  to  compare  both  together,  and  to 
range  what  I  have  to  fay  in  fome  Order,  I  pro- 
ceed to  conlider  them  diftindtly ;  and,  in  exa- 
mining his  Interpretation,  will,  firft,  view  what 
he  has  urged  in  Defence  of  it,  and  then  propofe 
fuch  Objections,,  as  occur  to  me,  againft  it. 

The  Enquiry,  Pag.  2.  begins  with  fome  Ob- 
fervations  about  the  general  Notion  of  Demons 
among  the  ancient  Greeks ;  which  I  can't  think 
to  the  prefent  Purpofe  of  fettling  the  Meaning 
of  the  Demoniacks  in  the  New  Tefi anient.  For, 
however  indifferent  the  Ufe  of  the  Word  zW* 

am 


(8) 

fim  might  be  among  thofe,  yet  ActtpcvtGv  in  Scrip- 
ture^ always,  when  defigned  to  {hew  theOpinion 
of  the  facred  Writers,  ufed  in  abadSenfe,  and  ap- 
plied to  the  Devil,  or  to  Idols,  as  has  been  obfer- 
ved  by  Criticks  ancient  and  modern*.  It  is  there- 
fore probable,that  this  different  Acceptation  of  the 
Word  will  and  muft  occafion  a  peculiar  Accep- 
tation of  that  derived  from  it ;  and  that  we  can- 
not have  any  Light  from  the  general  Senfe  of 
Aaipav  among  the  Greeks,  to  determine  the 
Senfe  of  ^atpovityfAmi  in  the  New  cTeftament. 

Indeed  this  Gentleman  tells  us,  P.  4.  that 
"  this  Notion  of  Demons,  that  they  were  the 
Souls  of  fuch  as  once  had  lived  upon  Earth, 
is  fo  univerfally  allowed  by  Jews  and  Chri- 
flians,  as  well  as  Heathens,    that  fcarce  any 


*  To  Ce/fits,  who  pleaded,  that  Demons,  as  well  as  Gods,  de- 
fended from  Heaven  for   the  Service  of  Men,  Origen  anfwers, 

bX  CfUV,      OTl    TO     7&)V   0<X-{[SjOV&>V   OlOfJUCC    &9t  f//E<TOV   iftV,     6)C,    TO    T&V    av^JCO)- 

nuv,     Iv    tic,    rtvtt;  fjuiv  ciftTci,    ti\tic,   ai  <pxvA.oi    SKTIV  1 CCit   OS    tVf   TUt 

<$Xtj\k>V  i\u  7«    TIOC^VTIFH    (TCt)(J!/Ct\<&>    OiiVXfAia'V     TOtOTtTtXt  TO    TUV  OUtU.0 ' - 

vxv  ovefjux,     xAxvcvYlav   xl  7>t^<r7rctv]av   rsq  ccv3-get)7rxc,t    xj  x.x§iAxov\cci 
ttiro  r«  ©£«  y^  7wv  v*zftjfotviojv    IttI  tu    tviot  ^uy^x]x.      L.     C.    Ed, 

Cantab,  p.  234. 

Nos  autem,  ficut  S.  Scriptura  loquitur,  fecundum  quam  Chriftiani 
fumus,  Angelos  quidem  partim  bonos,  partim  malos,  nunquam, 
vero  bonos  dacmones  legimus.  Sed  ubicunque  illarum  literarum 
hoc  nomen  pofitum  reperirur,  five  daemones,  five  dzemonia  dican- 
tur,  non  nili  maligni  fignificantur  Spiritus.  Aug.  de  Ci<v.  Dei. 
L.  9.  c.  19.  Twilts  Crit.  Exam.  Part  1.  p.  116.  H.  Stepb. 
Lex.  in  voce  Aa  »///&".  Warren's  An  fiver  to  Plain  Account,  Part  2. 
}  .  7,  &c.  Vid.  etiam  Du  Frene  GloJJ.  V.  2.  in  <voc.  Deem. 
Augujl.  ubi  fupra,  acids,  that  not  even  the  Heathens  ever  faid, 
Damonem  babes,  but  by  way  of  Curfe,  and  Reproach.  Grotius 
en  Matth.  iv.  24.  obferves,  That  the  Hellenifts  ufed  kxtyuw  in  an 
ill  Senfe,  as  the  Hebrews  did  Baal;  tho'  both  originally  indiffe- 
rent in  their  Signification. 

*c  one 


(9  ) 

u  one  will  difpute  it.  "     But  if  he  means,  that 
this  is  the  proper  Notion  of  the  Scripture  De- 
mons, I  apprehend  he  is  miftaken,  and  will  find 
but  few  that  affirm  it.     He  quotes  Jitftin  Mar- 
tyr, and  Jofephus.     As  to    the  former,    what 
wonder   can   it   be,    that  one  bred  up  in  the 
Schools  of  the  Platonick  Philofophy,  fhould  not 
be  able  to  get  rid  of  all  the  Notions  he  learned 
there,  and  fhould  ftill  retain  a  Prejudice,  which 
could  have  no  very  ill  Confequence  ?   And  that 
the  other,    to  recommend  his  Hiflories  to  the 
Heathens,    for   whofe   Sake  he   wrote   them, 
fhould  probably  have  adopted  one  of  their  Mi- 
ilakes,  and  given   an  Explication  of  the  Word 
Act,i[jtiviovy  which  they  had  been  ufed  to  ?  How- 
ever this  be,  it  is  certain,    that  this  is  not  the 
Scripture  Senfe  of  this  Word ,  which  there  de- 
notes either  Idols,  or  Devils.     Thus,    Pf.  xcvi. 
5.  jj'dflft  St  9~t0i  t£)v  iBv&v  *  oatfjLGvtct,     The  He- 
brew Word  is  g3^7*Wfc  which  Lev.  xxvi.  1,  is 
by  the  LXX  rendered  xiLP07ro^Tcty   and  which 
is  derived  from   V?8  which   fignifies,  nothing, 
agreeably  to  what  St.  Paul  fays,  &Tiv  stfrahov  c* 
KGcpai,    1  Cor.  viii.  4.  Vid.  Rev.  ix.  20.     That 
the  Scripture  confiders  the  Gods  of  the  Heathen  as 
Devils,  I  believe  wants   no  Proof,    no  more 
than  that  they  were  fo  looked  upon  in  the  Pri- 
mitive Church ;  of  which  more  hereafter. 

The  next  Point  propofed  to  be  confidered  in 
the  Enquiry,  is,  (Pag.  5.)  "  Whether"  thefe  De~ 

*  Symmacbus  etrfactfxlt.     Aquila.  Ixirtefof. 

B  mom 


(   io  ) 

mons,  or  the  Souls  of  departed  Men,  "  had  any 
"  Powers  committed  to  them  over  Mankind  ?  " 
This  the  Gentleman  does  not  think  has  been 
Satisfactorily  proved,  "  and  imagines,  that 
they  that  attempt  to  "  do  this,  "  muft  prove 
with  Certainty,  that  the  Heathen  Gods  and 
Goddefles,  Neptune,  Hecate,  Ceres,  Apollo, 
&c.  were  the  real  Authors  of  fuch  Actions, 
as  were  imputed  to  them." 
Here  alfo  I  am  obliged  to  differ  from  the  Au- 
thor. I  can't  think  it  at  all  necerTary  to  do  fo. 
Upon  the  prefent  Foot  of  our  Debate,  it  ap- 
pears fufficient  to  prove,  that  the  Devils,  the 
Scripture  Demons,  had  fome  "  Powers  commit- 
"  ted  to  them  over  Mankind."  And  this,  I  be- 
lieve, this  Gentleman  will  not  deny.  And  I 
can't  but  add,  that  the  general  Notion  oiPof- 
JeJJions,  whether  juft  or  not,  feem  to  imply  as 
much.  The  yews  certainly  had  no  Notion  of 
Neptune,  Hecate,  &c.  And  yet  we  find  the 
Belief  of  Po[JeJ/io?is  as  ftrong  in  them,  as  in  the 
Greeks.  How  to  account  for  a  Belief  fo  uni~ 
verjally  prevailing,  will  perhaps  be  difficult  ; 
unlefs  we,  at  leaft,  have  recourfe  to  fome  tra- 
ditionary Account  of  evil  and  mijchievous  Spi- 
rits fuffered  to  rans;e  about  the  World.  The 
Prejudices  and  Superftition  of  the  Heathens  here 
are  owned.  I  would  beg  to  know,  from  whence 
they  proceeded  ?  If  it  be  faid,  from  their  Fears, 
the  Queftion  returns,  What  gave  occafion  to 
thefe  ?  Surely  either  Experience,  or  Tradition. 
Men  do  not  ufe  to  fear  what  they  have  never 

ken 


( II ) 

feen  or  heard  of,  and  what  they  have  noReafon 

to  imagine. If  their  Ignorance  of  the  true 

Caufe  of  any  Diftemper  be  pleaded  as  the  Rea- 
fon  of  their  afcribing  it  to  their  Demons, — This, 
I  own,  is  not  improbable,  if  we  firft  fuppofe 
them  acquainted  with  the  Nature  of  thefe  Spi- 
ri's.  But  from  whence  had  they  this  Know- 
ledge? Probably,  from  what  they  faw,  and 
from  Tradition,  which  being  by  degrees  corrup- 
ted, and  mixed  with  Fable,  and  like  their  Pro- 
phecies, obfcuris  vera  involvem,  might  come 
to  be,  what  the  Heathens  efteemed  it.  This 
however,  is  offered  only  as  a  Conjecture.  That 
trie  Devils  had  a  ftrici  a?id  proper  Power  over 
Men,  and  that  they  exercifed  this  Power  under 
the  Names  of  the  Heathen  Deities,  is  what  the 
Scripture  fuppofes,  and  is  all  that  my  prefent 
Argument  requires. 

The  Author  of  the  Enquiry  next  obferves, 
Pag.  6,  7.  that  fome  particular  and  extraordinary 
Diftempers  "  were  imputed  directly  to  their 
"  Demons."  He  firft  mentions  the  Epilepjy,  which 
was  thence  called  lues  deijica,  and  morbus Jacer. 
And  from  Hippocrates  he  {hews,  that  fome 
Quacks  pretended  to  cure  it  by  Expiations,  and 
Magic  Charms,  P.J,  8,  9,  10.  Now,  befides 
that  this  concludes  nothing  againft  the  Demo- 
niacks  of  Scripture,  the  Sentiments  and  Lan- 
guage of  which  can't  be  fuppofed  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  the  Greeks,  we  mould  take  no- 
tice, that  this  is  not  one  of  the  Cafes,  which 
were  generally   thought   Demoniacal,     To  go 

B  2  no 


(    12    ) 

no  farther  than  to  P.  9.  of  the  Enquiry,  we 
find  from  a  Paffage  of  Arijiceus  there  quoted, 
that  there  were  feveral  Opinions  about  this  Di- 
ftemper,  and  that  this  was  but  one  Reafon,  (a- 
mong  others  which  he  affigns)  for  its  being 
called  Sacred.  Suppofe  then  thofe,  who  gave 
this  Reafon,  were  miftaken  in  this  Particular, 
as  I  can  eafily  grant  they  were  — what  follows? 
That  there  were  no  Perfons  in  thofe  Times 
properly  poffejfed,  becaufe  thefe  were  by  fome 
falfly  laid  to  be  fo  ?  —  No  furely.  —  Nay  the 
contrary  may  rather  be  concluded  from  hence. 
For  if  there  were  no  realPoJJ'ejJions,  whofe  Symp- 
toms or  Appearances  were  known,  and  with 
which  the  Cafe  of  the  Epileptick  could  be  com- 
pared, 'tis  hardly  probable,  that  any  one  would 
have  thought  of  reprefenting  this  as  a  PofjeJJion. 
Nor  can  any  Thing  be  drawn  from  the  Im- 
pojlors  which  appeared  then,  or  from  Hippo- 
crates fpeaking  with  Indignation  againft  them, 
to  prejudice  my  prefent  Argument.  That  there 
fhould  be  Cheats,  who  took  hold  on  the  Preju- 
dices of  the  People,  and  impofed  on  their  Ig- 
norance 5  and  that  fo  excellent  a  Phyfician 
fhould  difcover  and  expofe  them,  both  out  of 
Kindnefs  to  the  People,  and  in  Vindication  of 
his  Pro feffion ;  there  is  furely  nothing  wonder- 
ful in  this.  We  fee  the  like  happen  every  Day. 
But  from  fuch  Miflakes  and  Impoftures,  the 
Confequence  wTill  be  only  a  Pojjibility  of  other 
Cafes  being  fuch.  We  have  not  yet  the  leaft 
Proof,  that  they  were  actually  fo. 

From 


(  i3  ) 

From  what  has  been  faid,  we  fee  a  ready 
Anfwer  to  the  Argument  in  the  two  next  Pages, 
Enq.  p.  ii,  12.  It  is  here  fuppofed  that  T'ertnl- 
lian  meant  by  Demons,  the  Souls  of  departed 
Men  :  Whereas  it  is  plain  from  what  we  fhall 
have  occafion  to  cite  hereafter,  that  he  under- 
ftood  Devils,  or  evil  Spirits,  which  the  Gentiles 
worfhipped.  And  as  to  the  Paffage  before  us, 
every  Word  is  as  applicable  to  thefe,  as  to  the 
others.  *  P.  12.  proceeds  on  a  like  Miftake, 
that  Neptune,  Mars,  &c,  can't  be  proved  to 
have  fuch  Powers  as  were  ufually  imputed 
to  them."  And  that  "  Many  of  the  Hea- 
then Deities,  to  whom  Diftempers  were  at- 
tributed, were  nothing  but  mere  imaginary 
Beings,"  And  therefore  that  cc  in  both  Cafes, 
a  mere  Hypothecs  is  maintained,"  that  thefe 
were  the  Caufe  of  fuch  Diftempers.  But  what 
then  ?  If  thefe  were  "  Imaginary  Beings,"  are 
the  Devil  and  his  Angels  alfo  "  Imaginary  Be- 
"  ings  ?"  Have  thefe  no  Exijlence,  or  no  Power 
over  Mankind  ?  And  may  it  not  be  fomething 
more  than  <c  a  mere  Hypothefis,"  That  thefe 
exercifed  this  Power  in  fuch  a  manner,  and  were 
the  Occafion  of  Difeafes  ?  Thefe  are  the  only 
Scripture  Demons,  whofe  Poffeffions  I  am  con- 
cerned to  defend,   and  who  were  the  Authors 

*  Corporibus  quidem  et  valetudines  infligunt,  &  aliquos  cafus 
acerbos  ;  Arums  vero  repentinos  et  extraordinarios  per  vim  ex- 
ceflus.  Suppetit  illis  ad  utramque  iubftantiam  hominisadeundarn 
fubtilitas  et  tenuitas  fua.  Alultum  fpiritalibus  viribus  licet,  ut 
invifibiles  et  infenfibiles  in  effect-ii  potius  quam  in  aclu  fuo  appu- 
reant.     tertul.  Jpologet.  c.  22. 

and 


cc 
cc 
cc 

tc 


(14  ) 

and  Objefts  of  the  Heathen  Worfhip,    under 
the  Names  of  Mars,  Pluto,  Hecate,   &c.  -j- 

The  Paragraph  I  am  examining  concludes 
with  the  following  Rule,  which,  however  plau- 
fible  it  appears,  I  cant  think  univerfally  true. 
If  we  find  there  is  nothing  in  [any  Diftem- 
per]  but  what  may  be  the  EfFed:  of  mere 
natural  Diforder  in  an  human  Body,  it  is  ab- 
furd  to  introduce  a  Deity  into  the  Affair." 
This  is  confirmed  by  that  Line  of  Horace,  nee 
Deus  inter/it,  &c.  The  Poet  certainly  proves 
nothing  here,  as  he  fpake  of  a  quite  different 
Matter.  And  as  to  the  Rule  itfelf,  though  it 
fhould  be  allowed  to  hold  in  Cafes,  where  we 
have  no  Reafon  to  believe  any  PoffcJJion,  yet 
it  cannot  hold  againft  Evidence  of  Pojjejjions,  or 
be  fufficient  to  fet  it  a  fide.  Who  can  pretend  to 
an  exa£t  Knowledge  of  the  Extent  of  the  Power 
of  evil  Spirits?  Who  can  fay,  that  they  can't 
inflid:  even  natural  Difeafes  ?  If  they  can,  then, 
tho'  nothing  more  than  mere  natural  Difbiders 
appear,  it  may  not  be  abfurd  to  introduce  them 
into  the  Affair.  And,  if  we  have  fufficient  ex- 
ternal Tef  limony,  that  fuch  Diforders  did  pro- 
ceed from  them  ;  in  fuch  Cafe,  it  is  not  abfurd, 


■\  "  Recaufe  thofe,  whom  the  Gentiles  took  for  Demons,  and 
c'  for  deified  Souls  of  their  Worthies,  were  indeed  no  other  than 
"  evil  Spirits,  counterfeiting  the  Souls  of  Men  deceafed,  and 
"  masking  themfelves  under  the  Names  of  fuch  fuppofed  De- 
"  mons,  under  that  Colour  to  feduce  Mankind  ;  therefore  the 
••  Scripcure  ufeth  the  Name  Demons,  for  that  they  were  indeed, 
"  and  not  for  what  theyfeemed  to  be."  Mede's  Works,  p.  635. 
\  id.  H.  Grot,  de  Vent.   L.  IV.  Sett.  III. 

to 


(i  IS  )    '    ; 

to  introduce  them ;  or  rather,  it  is  abfurd,  not 
to  introduce  them.  As  Scripture  muft  be  owned 
by  Chrijlians  to  befufficient  Tejl'wiony,  this  can 
be  no  juft  Rule  for  examining  into  the  Cafes 
mentioned  therein.  Where  this  afcribes  any 
Diforders  to  Devils,  however  *  natural  the 
Effe&s  of  fuch  Diforders  may  be,  yet  the  Per- 
fons  labouring  under  them,  are  to  be  efteemed 
Demoniacks. 

The  firft  Inftance  the  Enquiry,  p.  13.  gives 
of  the  Application  of  this  Rule,  is  that  of  the 
Epilepfy,  the  Cafe  of  which  is  reaffumed.  But 
I  need  not  repeat  what  has  been  faid  about  this. 
We  are  no  way  concerned  to  vindicate  the  Hea- 
then in  any  Miftakes.  It  is  acknowledge,  that 
They  without  Grounds  afcrib'd  this  Diftemper 
in  general  to  their  Gods.  This  Hippocrates  very 
judicioufly  and  juftly  confuted,  by  fhewing  it 
in  general  to  be  ri  cLv&q&Tnvov,  naturally  incide?it, 
to  Man.  But  they  gave  him  no  Occafion  to 
proceed  any  farther.  Had  they  affign'd  any 
particular  Cafes,  and  been  able  to  produce  as 

*  That  Devils  had  a  Power  in  thofe  Days  to  inflift  Difeafes,  is 
owned  by  Dr.  Hammond,  on  Mat.  x.  I.  xvii.  15.  So  V Enfant, 
on  1  Cor.  v.  5.  "  Soit  mis  dans  la  puiffance  du  Diable,  pour  en 
«*  etre  tourmente,  afflige  de  maladies,  &  de  peines  temporelles, 
"  jufqu'  a  3a  mort  meme,  fi  Dieu  le  permit."  Mr.  Locke's  Opi- 
nion is  much  the  fame,  — "  Deliver  the  Offender  up  to  Satan,  that 
"  being  put  thus  into  the  Hands  and  Power  of  the  Devil,  his 
M  Body  may  be  afflicted  and  brought  down,  &c ."  On  St.  PauPs 
Epiji.     See  alfo  Dr.  Cave's  Primitive  Cbriflianity,  p.  449. 

"  Why  may  not  the  Operation  of  an  evil  Spirit  on  the  Body 
"  create  Diflempers,  as  well  as  the  Operations  of  many  Natural 
"  Subftances  ?"     Difcourfe  of  our  Saviour  s  miraculous  Power  of 
Healing,    &c.  1730.  p.  24. 

4  fufficient 


(  16  ) 

fufficient  Evidence,  as  Scripture  is  to  us,  that, 
in  thefe,  the  Diftemper  was  owing  to  evil  Spi- 
rits; I  apprehend,  it  would  not  have  been  fuf- 
ficient for  him  to  have  pleaded,  that  the  Effects 
of  the  Diforder  were  natural  :  And  he  muft, 
notwithftanding  this,  have  admitted  fuch  Per- 
fons  to  have  been  real  Demoniacis ;  unlefs  he 
could  have  proved  thofe  Spirits  to  have  had  no 
Existence,  or  no  fuch  Power.  Which,  I  be- 
lieve, Hippocrates  would  hardly  have  undertaken 

to  do. 

The  Cerriti  and  Larvati  come  next  to  be 
confider'd,  of  whom  the  Author  treats  pretty 
largely,  Enquiry,  p.  14—19.  proving  from  Plan- 
tusy  that  Madmen  had  thofe  Titles  given  them, 
and  concluding  "  That  in  the  fame  manner,  and 
1  in  the  fame  Propriety  of  Language,    as  dif- 
c  order'd  Perfons   among  the  Romans    were  \ 
f  called  Cerriti  and  Larvati,    tho'  their  Difor- 
4  ders   did  not   arife  from  Ceres,    or  Larva  -y 
1   Perfons    may    be  called  Dcmoniacks,    tho* 
c  Demons  are  not  the  Caufe  of  their  Diftem- 
c  pers."  p.  19.  Were  all  this  granted,  I  cannot 
fee  how  it  would  affedt  the  Point  I  am  defend- 
ing.    The  Qncftion  is   not  whether  Madmen, 
6cc.   may  be  called  Demoniacis  ?   But  whether 
they  are  the  inly  Demoniaek  ,  or  the  Demoniacks 
of  the  Nc:v  ^'/lament  f  This  will  by  no  means 
be  allowed  to  follow  from  the  other.      Thus, 
to  ufe  the  feme  Inftance,   Madmen  were  called 
Cerriti.       But    were    they   the   only  Cerriti ? 
No     Calepin  informs  us;  that  this  Word  origi- 
nally 


r»7) 

nally  figniries  :  :     tormented  b\  t         \    for  the 
Prieils  in  performing   her    faered  Cere/nonies, 
-*oere  fdzci  rJ.:tb  M.  And  he  i'ubioins 

another  Inftance  very  appofite  to  this  Purpofe  ■, 
And  as  from  Bacchus  w  -nes  the  IVord  Baccbam, 
Jo  from  Ceres  that  of  Cc~:tus  *. 

The  truth  of  the  Cale,  in  ihort,  is  this. 
The  Myfteries  of  the  Heathen  Gods,  ana  the 
Ceremonies  cf  their  V."  :,   were  perfor- 

in fuch  a  disorderly  tumulcuous  manner,     t 
it  had  much  more  the  I  -ance  of  Madn 

ifosuLReEgion.   Hence  the  Curtom  of  g 
fame"  riiich  I  from  diem:; 

to  all  Perion?,    who,   wh  for- 

tune,  or  otherwife,  like    :r.  inner. 

Thus  the  Word  -  —me  to  figliify  to 

:A  :     Tfai     Cerr'-tus  :  T  us   _-...- 
u:.:.~.        l  feft  Senfe  of  which  is  to  be  7.  d 

with  a  Dcron,)  *  from  the    furicus   Actions 
nfoally  >bferv'd  in  fuch,    [  to  be  uftd   : 

tot  Thele  fecoadary  Sen&s   men  m 

be  ittowc  ht  not  to  exebde  or  pre-'u- 

dice  the  primarv  or  Intei|  ;   on 

are   •  uded,   and  which 

.indeed  they  greatly  confirm  -\- . 

*    C:  -  ■   -"■ 

"      -  '  ....  ... 

Bi:cbo  baccharoon  didniic,  i\z  z.  Cerere  ■     Cmltftmt  Z 

-f-  Thus  alfc       b  Aotbc  ~ 

:f  the  r 

C  T. 


(  18  ) 

Thus  alfo  Larvatus  was  ufed  for  a  Madman, 
But  from  whence  arofe  this  Senfe  ?  H.  Steph. 
in  his  The/aunts,  tells  us,  from  Fejtus,  Larva- 
tus, mente  mot  us  y  quasi  a  larvis  exterritus. 
This  fhould  feem  to  imply,  that  there  had 
been  Inftances  of  Perfons  really  fo  affrighted. 
And  I  hope  I  fhall  not  be  thought  fuperftitious, 
if  I  think  it  probable  there  were  fucn.  For  if 
the  Larva?  were  indeed,  what  the  Author  of 
the  Enquiry,  p.  16.  owns  they  were  imagined 
to  be,  "  mifchievous  and  wicked  Spirits  "  then 
they  were  fomething  more  than  Speclres,  and 
there  is  no  Difficulty  in  believing,  that  they 
might  terrify  and  torment  Men.  And  I  am 
confirmed  in  this  Suppofition,  by  obferving, 
how  nearly  the  Account  we  have,  p.  18.  from 
Apukius,  of  "  the  ordinary  Notion  concern- 
"  ing  thefe  Larva*"  correfponds  with  the 
Scripture  Account  of  evil  Spirits  *.  Are 
thofe  faid  to  be  puniJJjed  on  Account  of  their  ill 
Defcrts  in  Life  ?  So  St.  Peter  fpeaks  of  thefe, 
2  i±,p.  11.  4.  0  Qecg  ctyyiXocv  dfAcLpTinrclvrav  xk 
sQc-icctTc.  Are  they  punijhed  with  a  fort  of 
Banijhment,  always  rambling  about  ?  Exactly 
the  fame  is  the  Account  of  the  Devil,  Jobi.  7. 
1  Pet  v.  8.  Were  they  vain  Terrors  to  good 
Men,  but  to  evil  Men  noxious  ?  It  would  he 
needlefs  to  cite  particular  Texts  to  juflify  this 

*  Propter  adverfa  vita:  merita,  nullis  bonis  fedibus,  incerta* 
vagatione,  fcuquodam  exiJio  punitur,  inane  terriculamentum  bo- 
nis hominibus,  cxterum  malis  noxium,  hunc  plerique  Larvam 
peihibenc.     Jlpuleim  de  Dsos  Socratit, 

4  Compa- 


(  19  ) 

Comparifon.  — — The  whole  Character  of  evil 

Spirits  in    Scripture  makes  it  good. We 

fee  then,  how  probable  it  is,  that  the  Larvce 
were  imagined  to  be,  what  they  really  were  ; 
that  they  were  not  mere  Speclres,  but  actual 
Beings,  whofe  Nature  prompted  them  to  do 
Mifchief,  and  who  might  be  permitted,  in  fome 
Meafure,  by  the  Supreme  Being,  to  do  it.  Nor 
can  it  be  any  Objection  to  this,  that  they  were 
known  by  thefe  Names  5  that  their  Natures 
might  be  a  little  mifunderftood  ;  or  that  they 
gave  Occafion  to  a  real  Diftemper's  being 
called  after  them. 

As  to  the  vvp4)o}JJ7rToi,  or  Lymphatici,  which 
are  mentioned  in  the  Enquiry,  p.  19.  I  find 
great  Difference  about  the  origin  of  the  Word. 
We  faw  that  Calepin  made  them  the  fame  with 
the  Ceriti.  Hejychius's  Interpretation  is,  Per- 
fons  pofj'efsd  with  the  Nymphce,  and  Prophejying 
wider  their  actual  Influence  S: 

Others  derive  it  from  the  poetical  Stories  of  the 
Nymphs,  and  from  fome,  who  were  reprefented 
as  feized  by  Madnefs,  for  having  feen  them  com- 
ing out  of  the  Water  *f\  Others  make  it  only  a 
moft  particular  fort  of  Madnefs,  when  Men  have 
fuch  a  Terror  of  the  Water  upon  them,  that 
they  can't  forbear  plunging  into  it  §.  And  it  has 

\  Dicitur  vj(a$i£v  furore  corripi  ob  vifam  Numphas  effigiem, 
feu  fpeciem  e  fonte.     H.  Stepb.  Lex. 

§  Alii  autem  Lymphatos  dici  exiftimant  eos,  qui  metu  ec  hor- 
rore  quodam  aquae  afficiuntur,  adeo  utfefsepe  in  earn  przecipitent : 
Quos  Graci  v<Jp*<pe£ys  appellant.     Ibid. 

C  2  been 


(     20    ) 

been  obferved,  that  Ariftotle  applied  the  Word 
up/pioUt  to  Mares.  So  that  amidft  fuch  a  Va- 
riety of  Interpretations,  it  may  be  hard  to  fay, 
whether  any  Pcffejjion,  ftrictly  fpeaking,  was 
intended  by  thefe  Expreffions,  or  not.  The 
Gentleman  thinks  "  they  plainly  meant  no- 
"  thing  but  certain  Diftempers,  and  to  which 
<c  certain  Medicines  were  applied/'  And  he 
goes  on  to  mention  from  Pliny  feveral  of  thefe 
Remedies,  moft  of  which  indeed  are  ridiculous 
enough.  But  from  their  being  fo  ridiculous, 
it  may  be  concluded,  that  fomething  more  than 
mere  Madn  /i  was  conceived  to  be  the  Cafe.  For 
by  far  the  greateft  Part  of  thefe  Medicines  are 
equally  as  unfuitable  to  this,  as  to  real  Pojfef- 
fuau  If  this  be  fuppofed,  Superjlition  will  eafily 
account  for  the  Abfurdity  of  ordering  fuch 
things ;  fince  nothing  is  fo  ridiculous,  which 
Superjlition  will  not  lead  Men  to.  But  if 
t^efe  were  only  conceivdto  becommonDiforders, 
nothing  could  be  more  abfurd,  than  to  apply 
fome  of  thefe  Remedies.  I  will  mention  only 
one  we  find,  Enq.  p.  20,  in  the  Ma?'gin. 
"  Nails  taken  out  of  a  Grave,  and  fixed  into  a 
<c  Threfhold,  were  good  againft.  noBurnasLym- 
:  phationes"  This  has  evidently  the  Face  and 
Appearance  of  a  Charm ,  and  could  never  have 
been  thought  of,  as  a  Remedy  againft  Madnejs, 
or  any  other  natural  Dijlcmpcr  *f\ 

We 

f'MiKh  »h?  fome  may  he  faid  of  the  Luftratiom  mentioned, Enq. 
•>■  li  it  fhould  be  here  objected,  that  Charms  have  been  ufed 

to 


(    21    ) 

We  have  now  gone  through,  what  this  Au- 
thor has  urged  about  the  Notion  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  had  of  Demons,  and  their  Poffej/ions. 
And,  I  hope,  it  has  been  made  appear,  that 
the  Objections  he  has  brought,  do  not  deftroy 
our  Belief  of  fuch,  or  force  us  to  think  all  Cafes 
of  this  Nature  mentioned  by  them  to  be  no 
more  than  Natural  Diforders.  Nay,  I  hope, 
it  has  been  (hewn  to  be  probable,  that  evil  Spi- 
rits exercifed  fome  Power  over  the  Bodies,  as 
well  as  the  Minds ;  of  Men,  among  them,  and  in 
thofe  Times.  The  Certainty  of  this  I  might 
now  proceed  to  (hew  from  the  Testimonies  of 
fome  of  their  wifeft  Men,  who  can't  be 
thought  to  have  wanted  Sagacity  enough  to 
have  (etn  through  the  Opinion  of  the  Vulgar, 
if  it  had  been  all  a  Miftake.  But  this  will  fall 
more  properly  under  a  future  Head.  At  prefent 
I  will  only  mention  one  publick  Inftance,  which 
I  can't  but  be  furprized  the  Author  of  the  En- 
quiry has  neglected  to  take  notice  of;  and  this 
is  that  of  the  Heathen  Oracles.  The  univerlal 
Regard  paid  to  thefe  is  as  well  known  as  any 
Fact  whatever.  'Tis  impoffible  to  imagine, 
that  the  Accounts  are  all  falfe,  or  that  here  was 
nothing  more  than  natural  Diforders  :  And 
that  the  Perfons  who  delivered  them  were 
really  pofejjed,  or  proper  Demoniacks,  I  think> 

to  cure  Difeafes,  I  anfwer,  in  the  Words  of  Grotius,  in  Mat.  xii. 
22.  A dsemonibus  ad  morbos  rnos  tranfiit '.  Nor  is  there  any  other 
good  Account  to  be  given  of  their  Original.  And  perhaps  thefe 
Difeafes  mught  be  then  imputed  to  evil  Spirits.  See  alio  Dr.  Freina's 
Hilt,  of  Phyf.  V.  f.  p.  122,    123. 

there 


(22    ) 

there  is  no  room  to  doubt.  The  antient  Fa- 
thers often  rank  them  with  fuch,  and  ipeak  of 
them  as  actuated  by  Devils.  Thus  Jujlin 
Martyr  having  mentioned  feveral  Kinds  of 
Necromancy  and  Divination,  adds,  and  Perfons 
Seized  and  thrown  down  by  the  Souls  of  dead 
Men,  who  are  called  by  all  Aa,i[jLovioAy7rTct 
Demoniach,  and  Madmen,  and  what  you  call 
the  Oracles  of  Amphilochus,  and  Do  dona,  and 
Delphi,  &c.  *  So  St.  Cyprian  faid  of  evil  Spi- 
rits, thcfe  are  they  who  infpire  the  Breajls  of  the 
Prophets,  who  are  the  Authors  of  Oracles, 
who  creeping  into  Men's  Bodies,  raifefecret  'Ter- 
rors in  their  Minds,  dijlort  their  Limbs,  deflroy 
their  Health,  and  caiife  Diflempers  \.  Arno- 
bius,  having  mentioned  our  Lord's  Power  in 
curing  Difeafes,  in  a  pious  ftrain  of  Rhetoric, 
asks,  Was  He  one  of  us,  the  Prefence  and  Sight 
of  whom  the  Devils  which  had  entered  into  hu- 
man Bodies  could  not  bear,  but  frightened  with  a 
new  Power,  yielded  their  PofeJJion  ? — Whofe 
Name  once  heard  puts  the  evil  Spirits  to  fight, 
flences  the  Prophets,    and  makes  the  Diviners 

*    Ntw>fJuaAuui    (Xttv     yxp,     k}     xl    uaixQ&o'pvv    izxi^ui    inoxliv- 
tritfy   kJ  ^Z^¥  ci'fyvxUan  Khia-aq,     Kj  cl    Xtycptvoi    <mxfx  roTq    yud- 

yttf   o»»»paTo fM7:oi  Xj    vnxyio^oi iCj   el    yu^a^    x7roGx*bv]6>*    KctfA,- 

QeticfAtioi,    *j    pi^la/xi'M    ectG^axot,     «s    JaifAoueXijVlifS    kJ    fAtXlvefxitcv<it 
Ka*u<n  tea  MS,    x^  tx  -CD-tftp'    bfjuir   XtyofAitx  fJt/Xtlux  A[A^>i^o^x,    t£  Au- 

hmm%  *^  UvGSs,  K3  oa-x  xMxtoixZtx  i&     Apol.  2.  Vid.  Ladtan. 
de  Orig.  Error.  1.  2.  c.  16. 

f  Hi  Spiritus Afflatu  fuo  varum  pe&cra  infpirant — Oracula 

efficiunt Irrcpente5etiam  in  corporibus  occuhe  mentes  terrent, 

membra   diftorquent,    valctudincm    frangunt,   morbos  laceffunt. 
DcJdolor.  Vanit.  Ed.  Ox.  p.  14. 

joolijh  ? 


(    23    ) 

foolijh  *  ?  Laftantius  follows  his  Mailer  in  the 
fame  Sentiment.  Let  there  be  Jet  before  us  oney 
who,  it  is  certain,  is  pofejfed  by  a  Demon,  and 
the  Delphic  Prieji  or  Prophet,  we  Jhall  fee  them 
both  in  the  fame  manner  terrified  at  the  Name  of 
God  -,  and  Apollo  will  with  the  fame  hajle  de- 
part out  of  his  Prophet,  as  the  Spirit  will  out 
of  the  Demoniack  -f\  Eufebius  is  my  next 
Witnefs.  In  his  Praparat.  Evangelic,  we  find 
one  Chapter  with  this  Infcription,  That  the 
Heathen  Prophecies  a?td  Oracles  proceed  from 
evil  Spirits  \\.  St.  Augujlin's  Teftimony  (hall 
clofe  this  Account.  He  tells  us,  that  among  o- 
ther  Things,  Apu\ciusal/o  refers  to  the  Demons  the 
Divinations  of  the  Augurs,  Soothfayers,  Pro- 
phets, and  Dreams  §. . 

We  fee  here  the  Senfe  of  the  primitive 'Church 
concerning  the  Gentile  Oracles,  that  the  Fathers 
fpoke  of  thefe  as  of  diabolical  PoJfeJJions,  attribut- 
ed them,  as  well  as  other  Demoniacks,  to  the 

*  Unus  fuit  e  nobis,  cujus  pnefentiam,  cujus  vifum,  gens  ilia 
nequibat  ferre  merforum  in  viiceribus  Daemonum,  conterritaq; 
vi   nova  membrorum  pofleffione  cedebat  ?  5—  Cujus  nomen 

auditum  fugat  noxios  Spiritus  ?  Imponit  filentium  vatibus?  Ha- 
rufpices  inconfultos  reddit  ?  Arnob.  adv.  Gent.  L.  I .  p.  26. 

f  Si  conftituatur  in  medio  &  is,  quem  conftat  incurfum  Dae- 
monis  perpeti,  &  Delphici  Apollinis  Vates,  eodem  modo  Dei 
nomen  horrebunt ;  &  tarn  celeriter  excedet  de  Vate  fuo  Apollo, 
quam  ex  homine  Spiritus  ille  Dasmoniacus.  Lafi.  de  vera  Sapi- 
ent. L.  IV.  Ed.  Spark,  p.  399. 

(I    L.  V.  C.  4.       (Iff*   T4s?    fGTOvqfW*  JkifAQtm   UVUi  TU    IffCtpot  TC~$   tOmci 

$.  Inter  caetera  etiam  dicit  [Apuleius]  ad  eos  [Daemones]  per- 
tinere  divinationes  Augurum,  Arufpicum,  Vatum,  atq;  Som- 
morum.  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  L.  8.  c.  16.  Vid.  Minuc.  FeL 
Qftav.  Ed.  Lugd.  Bat.  p.  30,  &c. 

fame 


(   24  ) 

^iime  evil  Spirits,  and  declared,  thatagainft  both 
Cafes,  the  lame  Means  were  equally  fuccefsful. 
Whatever  Miftakes  therefore  there  might  be  in 
other  Inftances,  tho'  I  fee  no  Reafon  to  fuppofe 
fuch  in  all  ;  thefe  appear  to  be  fuch,  as  can't 
well  be  denied,  without  deftroying  the  Faith  of 
Hiftory,  in  general.  If  it  mould  be  afked,  for 
what  Reafon  God  permitted  the  Devils  to  have 
this  Power  then  ?  I  know  not  enough  of 
his  Divine  Counfels  to  anfwer  this,  nor  am  I  at 
all  concerned  that  I  am  not  able  to  anfwer  it. 
If  plain  Facts  are  to  be  denied,  becaufe  we  are 
ignorant  of  the  Reafons,  why  they  were  per- 
mitted to  happen,  we  (hall,  I  believe,  be  obli- 
ged to  deny  almoft  every  Thing  we  hear,  or 
fee. 

I  now  follow  the  Author  of  the  Enquiry, 
and  proceed,  as  he  does,  P.  20,  to  "  confider 
^£  the  Jews"  and  firft,  the  Inftance  of  Saul ; 
which  he  dwells  upon  fome  time,  and  offers  fe- 
veral  Confiderations  to  prove  it  to  be  nothing 
but  deep  Melancholy.  Now  here  it  may  be 
faid,  with  Probability,  that  we  are  not  obliged 
to  believe  any  PoffeJJion,  in  the  Cafe,  and  that 
the  Hiltorv  feems  to  intend  no  more,  than 
that,  the  evil  Spirit,  by  ordinary  Inftigations, 
ftirVed  up  the  Mind  of  Saul  to  Envy,  Malice, 
and  Fury*.  Thefe  are  the  chief  Effects  we 
find  mentioned  of  his  coming  upon,  or  affault- 
ing,  him  5  and  thefe,  we  know,  denote  fome- 

*  In  this  manner   it  is  faid,  that  Satan  entered  into  Judas. 
Luke  xxii.  3.     Job.  xiii.   2,  27. 

thing 


(  25  ) 

thing  very  different  from  our  Notion  of  his  fei~ 
zing,  oxpoffieffing  any  human  Body. 

Or,  by  an  evil  Spirit  may  be  meant  nothing 
elfe,  but  the  Temper  and  Affections  of  his  Mind. 
Thus,  we  read  of  the  Spirit  ofWifdom  andUn- 
derjianding:  And,  as  this  may  properly  enough 
be  called  a  good  Spirit,  fo  we  may  as  properly 
fpeak  of  the  Spirit  of  Sadne/s,  or  Fear,  or  Rage, 
under  the  Notion  of  an  evil  one*.  In  this  Senfe, 
the  Inftance  of  Saul  is  very  far  from  being  pa- 
rallel to  the  Demoniacks  of  the  Gcfpel.  The 
Language  here  may  be  thought  not  to  point 
out  to  us  any  Thing  more  than  common,  which 
can  never  be  faid  of  thofe,  with  the  leaft  Juftice. 
Since  whatever  the  real  Cafe  of  thefe  was,  they 
are  plainly,  and  ftrongly  reprefented,  as  actua- 
ted by  Devils. 

I  mention  thefe  Interpretations,  out  of  regard 
to  fome  learned  Men,  who  chufe  in  one  of  thefe 
Ways  to  avoid  the  Difficulty.  But  as  I  think 
this  not  fo  formidable,  and  as  the  literal  Senfe 
appears  moft  agreeable  to  the  whole  Hiftory,  I 
mall,  with  the  generality  of  Commentators, 
and,  as  it  is  faid,  with  all  the  ancient  Chriftian 
Writers,  fuppofe  Saul  to  have  been  a  real  De~ 
moniack-y  and  accordingly  go  on  to  reprefent 
what  I  take  to  be  the  true  Account  of  this  Mat- 
ter, and  then  to  vindicate  it  from  the  Objections 
of  the  Enquiry* 

*  Poflibly  the  Jews  might  mean  fomewhat  like  this,  when 
they  called  all  kinds  of  Melancholy,  an  foil  Spirit. 

D  Among 


(26) 

Among  fome  other  Predictions,  which  Sa- 
muel made  to  Saul  on  his  firft  anointing  him 
to  the  Kingdom,  we  read,  i  Sam.  x.  5,  6. 
that  he  mould  meet  a  Company  of  Prophets  coming 
down  from  the  High  Place,  with  a  Pfaltery, 
and  a  Tabret,  and  a  Pipe,  and  an  Harp  before 
them  ;  and  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lordfould  come 
upon  him,  and  that  he  mould  prophefy  with 
them,  and  mould  be  turned  into  another  Man. 
Whatever  might  be  the  particular  Confequences 
of  this  Spirit,,  whether  Wifdom,  or  Courage, 
or  Goodnefs  ;  it  appears  pad  Difpute,  that  it 
defended  from  above \  and  was  fupernaturally  deri- 
ved upon  him.  We  find  in  thegthandiothVer- 
fes,  that  this  Prophecy  was  fulfilled.  And  we  have 
Reafon  to  believe,  (yid.  ch.  xi.  v.  6.)  that  this 
Spirit  did  not  abide  continually  with  him,  but 
came  to  his  Support  and  Affiftance,  on  fuch 
proper  Occafions,  as  called  for  it.  However, 
it  was  not  long  before  he  difobeyed  God,  and 
forfeited  His  Favour :  And  then  we  read,  (ch. 
xvi.  v.  14.)  th'dt  tie  Spirit  of  the  Lord  departed 
from  Saul,  and  an  evil  Spirit  from  the  Lord 
troubled  him.  The  Antithefts  in  thefe  Words  is 
very  obfervable;  the  one  part  tends  greatly  to 
illuftrate  the  other.  As,  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  which  he  had  forfeited,  we  muft  under- 
ftand  fome  extraordinary  Influences  and  Com- 
munications 5  fo,  by  the  evil  Spirit,  as  oppofed 
to  that,  what  can  be  meant,  but  fome  uncom- 
mon AfTault  of  the  fpiritual  Enemy?  Let  us 
next  obfervc  the  different  Effects  of  thefe.  The 
3  Fruits 


C  27] 

Fruits  of  the  Spirit  of  God  are  Love,  Joy> 
Chearfulnefs,  and  Confidence,  Thole  of  the  Spi- 
rit of  Darknefs,  are  Envy,  Wrath,  Terrors,  and 
Fears.  Thus  God  fuffered  Satan  to  poffefs 
Saul,  afflicting  him  with  divers  Difeafes  and 
Torments,  fuch  as  Melancholy,  Diffraction, 
&c.  and  driving  him  to  the  greateft  Exceffes  of 
Rage  and  Diforder.  All  the  Relief  he  could 
get,  in  thefe  deplorable  Circumftances,  was 
from  Mufick,  which  often  gave  him  Eafe  and 
Refrefnment,  and  made  the  evil  Spirit  depart  from 
him-,  till  his  Envy  brought  him  again.  Vid.  ch. 
xviii.  ver.  10,  11,  12.  Ch.  xix.  v.  9. -f- 

This,  on  a  diligent  Examination  of  the  whole, 
I  take  to  be  the  true  State  of  this  Story.  We 
fee  now  how  Saul  was  affected.  Nothing  in- 
deed more  than  natural  Diforders  appear.  But 
thefe  the  Scriptures  afcribe,  not  to  his  natural 
Conftitution,  but  to  an  evil  Spirit  from  th& 
Lord,  by  His  Permiffion,  *  troubling,  cr  #  ter- 
rifying, or  *feizing,  or  *  jlr angling  him.  It 
may  be  queftioned,  whether  this  his  Melancholy 
gave  occafion  to   the  evil  Spirit  to  enter  into 


ic$*to*.  Jofeph,  Antiq.  L.  6.  c.  13. 

*  In  thefe  feveral  Ways  the  ancient  Interpreters  have  ex- 
pounded this  PafTage.  Vulg.  exagitabat  cut?t,  Cif  arripuerit. 
Chaldee  Paraph,  terrified.  Syfiack,  vexed,  and  invaded.  So 
the  Arabick,  LXX  cstmvcv,  Jofephus,  nnypxt  "turu  kJ  *p«/yaA*{ 
iviQipaAot.  And  how  agreeable  thefe  Actions  are  to  the  Nature 
of  fuch  wicked  Spirits,  appears  from  Eufebius's  derivation  of  the 
Word  hf^oiv  ;  ©^a  to  hwcttuv,  oxtp  syi  <pcZuo%  t£  IxQcQiiv,  «W- 
jbm*$Thx\   npoS^YflS  o^V^.     Praep.  Evang.  L,  4.  p.  5. 

D   2  him  : 


[   28  ] 

him*  5  or,  whether  it  was  a  neceflfary  Confe- 
quenceofthe%>/V^GaD,  the  Author  of  Joy 
and  Chearfulnefs,  departing  jrom  htm ;  or,  whe- 
ther it  was,  with  the  other  Diforders,  ^  nrft  rai- 
fed  and  occafioned  by  the  evil  Spirit.  But, 
whether  there  was  any  toil  Spirit  concerned  in 
the  Affair,  for  my  part,  I  can  make  no  doubt. 
The  laft  of  thofe  Suppofitions  is,  I  think,  moft 
confonant  to  the  facred  Text,  which  makes 
all  the  Diforders  of  Saul  confequential  to  the 
evil  Spirit's  coming  upon  him.  And,  as  was 
obferved  before,  'tis  very  eafy  to  imagine,  that 
the  Devil  may  be  permitted  by  God,  to  exercife 
a  Power  of  infliding  common  Difeafes  on  the 

Bodies  of  Men. 

Let  us  now  confider  what  the  Author  ot  the 
Enquiry  urges  againft  this  Interpretation.  Saul, 
P  22,  is  faid  to  prophefi,  i.e.  "  to  z&  as  a 
«<  Madman,  acTingas  the  Fates,  or  Prophets, 
«  are  ufually  defcribed  by  the  Ancients. "  All 
this  I  own,  and  yet,  according  to  what  has  been 
faid,  he  might,  ftri&ly  fpeaking,  have  been  a 
Demoniac^  And  tho'  Fates  came  to  fignify 
Madmen,  yet  it  alfo  retained  its  original  Mean- 
ing, and  fignined  Prophets  too,  both  good  and 
bad,  in  the  ttueft  Senfe.  And,  from  a  Sentence 
of  Euripides  quoted,  P.  24,  we  find  the  Hea- 
thens had  a  Notion  of  a  fort  of  Madnefs,  occa- 

*  m  Dieu  permit,  qu'il  fut  agite  par  un  mauvais  Efprit,  qui 
<«  fe  fervant  de  la  mauvaife  Uifpofition  des  humeurs  de  ce 
•  Prince,  &  de  (a  melancholic,  Tagitoit  et  l'obfedoit."  Cornet 
pi:i.  in  Saul. 

fioned 


(29) 

fioned  by  Divine  Inspiration,  SeS  irvoeti(ri  ip^ar 
vug.  And  to  this  only,  not  to  all  Madnefs,  in 
general,  he  attributes  "  a  good  deal  of  a  pro- 
"  phetick  Faculty.  "  His  Words  are  thefe, 
Madnefs  has  much  of  a  prophet ick  Power ;  for 
when  a  powerful  God  enters  into  the  Bod)\  he 
makes  the  Madman  foretell  what  is  to  come  *. 

The  Gentleman's  2d  Obfervation  is,  cc  that 
"  the  Cure  of  [Saul]  was  by  a  known  Method/' 
Here  I  apprehend  the  great  Objection  lies.  He 
afks  afterwards,  P.  26.  "  What  relation  has 
"  the  Sound  of  a  Harp  to  the  Expullion  of  Spi- 
"  rits?"  And  much  the  fame,  P.  29.  Tho' 
there  be  no  direct  or  immediate  Connection  be- 
tween thefe,  yet  we  may  eafily  conceive,  how 
one  might,  in  a  great  meafure,  be  affected  by  the 
other.  If  we  fuppofe  Saul's  Melancholy  and 
Diforders  inflicted  by  the  evil  Spirit ;  Hill  thefe 
are  the  fame  in  kind  with  other  Cafes  of  this 
Nature,  tho'  they  were  different,  with  regard 
to  their  Original.  And  natural  Diforders,  from 
whomfoever  they  proceed,  may  be  lerfened,  (and 
Said  does  not  appear  to  have  been  perfectly  cu- 
red) by  natural  Methods.  As  therefore  "  a  fkil- 
"  ful  Muflcian  will  always  comfort  and  refrefh 
"  the  [melancholy]  Patient:"  Saul's  Servants 
might  eafily  chink  of  this  Remedy  ;  and  Mufck 
might  naturally  raife  his  Spirits,  and  chear  his 


*    To  (juurtuffiq  fjua.v\t3trn*   7roX)sr,v  i%u  ' 


Eurfp.  Bacch. 

Peart, 


(  3°  ) 

Heart,  and  in  fome  degree  chafe  away  thofe 
Fears,  and  that  Sadnefs,  which  the  evil  Spirit 
had  raifed  within  him. 

2dly>  *  If  we  imagine  Saul's  Melancholy  prior 
to  his  Poffejjion,  and  that  the  Devil  made  ufe  of 
the  ill  Temper  of  his  Blood  and  Spirits  to  afflict 
him ;  then,  'tis  not  difficult  to  be  conceived, 
that  what  contributed  any  wife  to  drive  away 
fuch  Diforder,  and  to  enliven  and  glad  the 
Heart,  as  Mujick  undeniably  does,  muft,  in  fuch 
proportion,  contribute  to  difappoint  the  great 
Enemy  of  Men's  Happinefs,  and  to  relieve 
them  from  thefe  his  Torments.  Since  it  is  ac- 
tually depriving  him  of  the  Means,  if  I  may 
fo  fpeak,  by  which  he  torments  them.     But, 

Laftly,  what  difficulty  is  there  in  imagining, 
that  Mujick  might  be  propofed  to  Saul,  as  one 
way  of  inviting  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  to  come 
upon  him  again,  and  to  drive  out  the  evil  Spi- 
rit, which  had  been  fuffered  to  trouble  him  ? 
Tho'  this  be  not  exprefly  mentioned  in  the 
Text,    yet  neither   is  it  there  excluded  :    Nor 

*  Mufica  naturaliter  pellit  melancholiam,  qua  Daemon  ute- 
batur  ad  cruciandum  Saulem.  Nullus  enim  humor  hoc  oppor- 
tunior  eit  Diabclo,  ut  homines  vexet,  tentet,  incitetq;  ad  mce- 
rorcm,  invidiam,  iram,  de  fpe  rati  one  rn.  Qunre  eo  utitur  Dae- 
mon (qui  per  caufas  naturales  agit)  ad  homines  adigendum  in  an- 
gores,  fcrupulos,  odia,  caedes.  A  Lapid.  apud Synopf.  Critic,  in 
i  Saw.  xvi.  i  6.  Hac  ergo  melancholica  difpofitione  ut  gaudet 
Daemon,  ita,  ea  fublata,  per  accidens  &  indire&e  vel  abigitur, 
vel  impeditur.  Ibid.  Mufica  quidem  nihil  poteft  in  Diemonem 
direile,  cum  Spiriijjs  fit,  poteitta men  per  accidens,  quia  mitigatis 
affeclibus,  per  quos  in  animos  noflros  Diabolus  fe  infmuat,  etiam 
ipfe  pelKtur.  X-  Bocharl.  ibid. 

does 


(  3i  ) 

does  it  feem  at  all  improbable.  That  the  Pro- 
phets, among  the  Jews,  then  ufed  this  Method 
is  paft  Difpute.  Saul  himfelf  appears  firft  to 
have  experienced  the  good  Effects  of  this,  and 
might  therefore  be  not  unwilling  to  try  it  a 
fecond  Time.  Eli/ha,  having  been  ruffled*  by 
the  Prefence  of  a  wicked  King  of  Ifrae!y  takes 
the  fame  Way  of  calming  his  Mind,  and  of  fit- 
ting it  for  the  Reception  of  the  Divine  Influ- 
ences. Bring  me,  laid  he,  2  Kings  iii.  15.  a 
MinJireL  And  it  ca7ne  to  pajs  when  the  Min- 
flrel  played,  that  the  Hand  of  the  Lord  came  up- 
on him. 

Indeed,  it  is  hard  to  believe,  that  ever  the 
Spirit  of  God  came  upon  Saul  as  before:  But 
this  is  no  Proof,  that  neither  he,  nor  his  Ser- 
vants had  fome  fuch  Hopes,  and  View.  And 
tho'  it  did  not  pleafe  God  to  grant  him  any 
more  extraordinary  Favours,  yet  he  might  let 
the  Method  have  its  natural  Force  and  Power  ; 
or  if  this  was  neceffary,  enjoin  the  Devil  for  a 
Time  to  leave  him.  Or  thofe  about  Saul  might 
defign  no  more  than  the  prefent  Relief  of  their 
Mailer  ;  and  at  the  fame  Time  think,  that, 
what  was  fo  well  known  to  be  an  Inflrument 
of  inviting  a  good  Spirit  into  Men,  might  prove 
as  effectual  in  driving  out  a  bad  one.  There  is 
nothing  in  any  of  thefe  Suppofitions,  but  what 
is  very  conceivable.  On  either  of  them,  the 
Objection  of  the  unfitnefs  of  Mufick  *  to  caft 

*    Chryfofiome   calls    David**    Harp,      Axt&c'w   Qvythyrmov. 
Ed.  Par.   1636.  Tom.  p.  4,1. 

out 


(    32    ) 

out  an  evil  Spirit,  appears  fufficiently  anfwer- 
ed.  And  therefore  I  (hall  venture  to  put  down 
Sauk  as  he  is  defcribed  by  the  only  ancient 
Hiftories  we  have  of  his  Life,  the  Scripture 
and  Jo/phus,  for  one  true  and  undoubted  In- 
stance of  real  PqjJeJJion. 

The  Author  of  the  Enquiry y  P.  30,  &c. 
next  confiders  the  Charms,  which  Jofphus 
mentions ;  and  which  indeed  he  has  great  room 
to  ridicule  and  expofe.  But  ftill  this  is  not  e- 
nough  to  difprove  the  Fadl  in  queftion,  the  re- 
ality of  PcJfe[jlons  among  the  Jews  *.  Nay, 
I  think  this  is  rather  hereby  confirmed.  For 
if  there  had  been  no  fuch  Poff'cjfions,  'tis  unac- 
countable, whence  the  general  Belief  of  them 
arofe  :  And  if  there  had  been  no  fuch  general 
Belief,  we  can  never  imagine,  that  thofe 
Charms  would  have  been  inven'ed,  or  have 
been  ufed,  among  them.  Whereas,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  need  no  longer  wonder :  Su- 
ferftithny  as  has  been  obferved,  will  account 
for  every  Thing  of  this  Nature.  It  is  not  there- 
fore neceflary  to  the  Vindication  of  Demcniacks, 
that  we  fhould  allow  every  Remedy  that  was 
pra&iied  again  ft  them:  But  it  is  difficult  to  fay, 
how  thefe  came  to  be  ever  thought  on,  on 
any  other  Scheme,  than  the  Supposition  of  fuch 
Demoniacks, 


*  "  The  Targutn  on  Pf.  xci.  6  "  where  the  LXX  is  aV. 

Acapnia  n/io-»^f«»a,  *'  numbers  Troops  of  Demons,  mong  thofe 
"  who  uiflid  Plagues,  and  Death  upon  Men."  Witby  on  Luke 
xiii.   16. 

How- 


(  33  ) 

However,  Jofephus  is  not  the  only  Author* 
who  gives  us  an  Account  of  thefe,  and  of  the 
Jewtfh  Manners  of  exorcifing  them.  We  have 
Relations  of  both  as  ferious,  as  his  appears  to 
be  ludicrous,  yujiin  Martyr  feems  to  have 
made  *  no  doubt  that  the  Devils  might  be  fiib- 
jedt  to  thofe  among  them,  who  would  caft 
them  out,  in  the  Name  of  the  God  of  A'ora-* 
ham,  and  the  God  of  Ijaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob.  *f  This  we  have  confirnYd  by  Irenceus, 
whofe  Teftimony  is  fo  ftrong,  that  I  beg  leave 
to  fet  it  down  at  length.  All  things  are  Jub- 
jedl  to  the  Name  of  the  Supreme,  Omnipo- 
tent Being:  By  calling  upon  whom,  even 
before  our  Lord's  coming,  Men  were  delivered 
from  the  mojl  evil  Spirits,  from  every  Kind 
ef  Demons,  and  from  all  Apojlacy :  Not  that 
any  earthly  Spirits  or  Devils  had  ever  feen  Him  $ 
but  knowing  Him  to  be  God  over  all,  they  trem- 
bled at  his  Name. — For  this  Reafon,  the  Jews, 
even  to  this  Day,  put  the  Devils  to  flight  by  this 

*  The  Word  "a-aq  in  the  following  Citation  does  not  neceffarily 
imply  Doubtfulnefs  in  Juftin.  H.  Stephens  in  his  Lexicon  having 
obferved,  that  in  Arijlotle  and  others,  inter  dutn  adhiheri  locis  ubi 
alioaui  de  re  minime  dubid  agitur.  And  accordingly  Grotius  ren- 
ders tkr*t,  qjoting  this  very  Place,  by  Credo,  in  Mat.  xii.  27. 

•j-  'Eocv  at  Karen  izr#/}og  o»cf/jCf?i<^  run  GJote    i/xJv  yilivvipfawvy  ij  ficcd- 

1uy*)<ri]cu   a'^sf   ruv  ^ctif/mviuv.  aM'   ti   cilga,  ifypxifyi  tU  v/aSi  kccto6 
tS  Q*Q  A£pattf.«>,   x^  ©££  la-xetK,  *)  OiS  IcckuG,  ''iZflS   i7ro]xy^<ri]oci, 

Jj(Jt)     fJbi*    TOl    ol    f|     VfA/UV     fTTCQKlS-Xi    T7?     TB^VY),    WOrXtO    H^    TU    £#!'>},    ^f«- 

pivot   *|«p*i£a<n,    >£  ^vf/jtcc fjuoHTi  *$  k.cc]x^i<T[JU6tq  #p<yy1««,  tixot.      Juft- 

Dial,  cum  Trypbon.    Ed.  Paris,  1636,    p.  31 1.  Vid.  Orig.  L.  4. 
€ont.  Celf.  p.  183,  184. 

E  Wrf 


(  34  ) 

very  Invocation,    becauje  every  thing  fear  the 
Name  of  their  Creator  §. 

Nay,  it  is  not  difficult  to  colled:  this  from 
the  Ne-ro  T'cftament  itfelf.  When  the  Pharifees 
aicribed  our  Lord's  Cures  to  Beelzebub,  he 
asks  them,  by  whom  then  do  your  Sons  cajl 
them  out  ?  Alluding  to  fomething  well  known 
among  them,  and,  as  I  think,  moil  evidently 
implying,  that  fuch  Miracles  had  been  unde- 
niably performed  by  the  Di/ciples  of  the  Phari- 
fees.  For,  as  to  the  Suppofition,  that  by  your 
Sons  here,  were  meant  any  of  the  Twelve,  or 
the  Seventy,  though  it  has  the  Countenance  of 
fome  very  learned  Men  -,  I  cannot  think  it  pro- 
bable. Becaufe,  our  Saviour  plainly  fpoke  of 
fome  Cures,  which  the  Pharifees  could  not 
deny,  but  v/ere  obliged,  on  their  own  Princi- 
ples, to  admit.  Whereas  there  is  but  little 
Probability,  that  they  would  allow  thefe  Mira- 
cles, in  the  Difciples  of  Chri/l,  to  be  In- 
stances of  a  Divine  Power,  any  more  than  they 
did,  in  *  Himfef.  St.  f  crow's  Commentary 
on  this  Verfej    appears  very  juft.     "  By  the 

§    Altiflimi  et  Omnipotentis  appellationi  omnia  fubjecta 

funt :  Kc  Hujus  invocatior.e,  etiam  ante  adventum  Domini  noitri, 
falvabantur  homines,  et  a  fpiritibus  nequifiimis,  ft  a  Dcemoniis 
univerfis,  &  ?.b  apoihfift  univcria  :  Non  quaii  vidifl'enteum  terre- 
ni  fpiritus  aut  Daemones,  fed   cum  fcirent,  quoniam  eXt,    qui  eft 

iupcr  Omnia  Deus,  cujuset  in  vocation  em  tremebant Er  propter 

hoc  Judaei  ufquc  nunc  hacipla  ndfatione  Da?monas  effugant,  quando 
omnia  timeant  invocationem  Lijus  qui  fecitea.  bena.  Adv.  haeref. 
L.  2.  c.  5. 

'   Matth.  X.  2C.   Et*  Tf\>   oix.nl Wn-o'lw   /3«^£t£«A  tKoi^nrctvt   tcoVy 
p*>Mv  TMt  QiX&Kvs  aVls  ;  Vid,  Grot,  in  Mattb,  x'u.  27. 

Sons 


(  35  ) 

Sons  of  the  J,ews  is  fignified  either  the  ufual  ex- 
orcifis  of  that  Nation,  or  the  Apo files,  who  were 
born  of  their  Race.  Jf  the  exorciflsy  who  call 
out  Devils  by  Invocation  of  God,  then  our  Lord, 
by  a  prudent  ^ueftiony  forces  them  to  confef, 
that  His  Cures  werethe  work  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
Fory  Jays  Hey  if  when  your  Sons  cafl  out  Devils , 
you  afcribe  this,  not  to  Devilsy  but  to  God, 
why  may  not  the  fame  Works,  when  performed 
by  me,  be  imputed  to  the  fame  Caufe  *f\?  We  fee 
then,  that  our  Lord  fuppofed  the  Reality  of 
fome  fuch  Cures  among  the  Jewsy  and  fpake 
of  them,  as  he  fpake  of  his  own,  §  without 
the  leaft  Intimation,  that  they  were  only  pre- 
tended ones,  or  that  they  had  no  better  Foun- 
dation, than  the  Prejudices  of  the  Pharifees  : 
Which  I  cannot  think  he  would  have  done,  if 
this  had  been  the  Cafe.  But  of  this  I  purpofe 
to  fpeak  more  hereafter. 

There  is  one  feeming  Objection  againft  this, 
which  I  find  very  ftrongly  urged  by  a  prefent 
very  learned  Prelate  of  our  own  Church,  and 
which  I  therefore  beg  leave  to  fet  down  id  bis 
LordfTiip's  Words. 

f  Filios  Judaeorum,  vel  exorciftas  gentis  illius  ex  more  fignifi- 
cat,  vel  Apoilolos  ex  eorum  ftripe  generatos.  Si  exorcittes,  qui 
ad  invocationem  Dei  ejiciebant  Dsemones,  coartat  interrog  tione 
prudenti,  ut  confiteantur  Spiritus  Sancli  effe  opus.  Quod  ii  ex- 
puliio  Dasmonum,  inquit,  in  filiis  veitris  Deo  non  Dscmonibus 
deputatur,  quare  in  me  idem  opus  non  eandem  habeat  Caufain  ? 
Hieron.  Com.  in  Mat.  c.  xii.  v.  27.  Vid.  Wbitby,  in  locum. 

§  Hac  voce  quid  magis  portend  it,  quam  in  eo  ejicere  fe,  in  quo 
etfilii  eorum  ?  In  virtute  icilicet  Creatoris.     Tertu/. 

After 


(  36) 

§  After  he  had  mentioned  "  the  Accounts, 
(C  given  by  the  feveral  Evangelijls  of  the  extreme 
Surprize  of  the  Jewsy  that  were  Eye-witne£- 
fes  of  the  feveral  Difpoffeffions  of  evil  Spirits 
by  our  Lord  \  which  Ajlonijhment  of  them 
is  not  capable  of  any  natural  Explication, 
on  Suppofition  that  the  Difpoffeffion  of  De- 
vils was  an  unufual  Pradtice  among  the  Jews 
in  our  Saviour's  Time,  independently  of  his 
Authority."— His  Lordjhip  goes  on  to  obferve, 
it  is  not  eafy  for  any  one  that  pays  a  due 
<c  Veneration  to  the  Divine  Authority  of  the 
Gofpels  to  perfuade  himfelf,  that  the  cafling 
out  of  Devils  was  before  cuftomary  among 

the  Jews It  is  clear  too,  that  not  merely 

the  People  confider'd  our  Lord's  Difpoffeffion  of 
Devils  as  a  new  thing,  but  the  Pharijees 
themfelves,  as  malicious  and  learned  as  they 
were,  are  not  found  to  derogate  from  thofe 
Facets,  as  if  they  were  things  ufually  pra£tifed 
among  them,  and  that  confequently  gave 
J  ejus  no  peculiar  Authority." 
Now  I  readily  own,  that  fuch  Inftances  of 
Difpofjefftons  were  not  ufual,  or  frequent,  and 
therefore  the  Surprize  of  the  Jews  is  no  more 
than  natural.  As  Men  are  too  apt  to  degene- 
rate into  Superftition,  the  generality  of  the 
Exorcijls  among  them  depended  on  Magical 
Charms  and  Incantations^  the  Succefs  of  which 
we  have  no  Reafon  to  contend  for.     The  Fa6t 

$  Bifhop  Smalbrokes  Vindic.  of  Miracles,  &c,  V.  I.  p.  192,  &>c 

is 


cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

iC 

cc 

cc 


CC 

cc 
<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

C| 

it 
tt 


(  37  ) 

is  not  only  certain  from  Jofephus,  if  his  Autho- 
rity here  be  worth  any  thing,  but  from  Ju/lin 
Martyr,  who  tells  us,  that  they  made  ufe  of 
Arts  and  Methods,  to  this  Purpofe,  in  comr 
mon  with  the  Heathens,  Vid.  Supra.  And 
probably,  thofe  Jewijh  Vagabonds,  the  Exor- 
cijls,  mentioned  Acls  xix.  13.  (who,  without 
any  regard  to  our  Saviour,  only  having  ob- 
ferved  the  Succefs  of  St.  Paul,  prefumed  to  ufe 
the  Name  of  Jesus,  as  a  Charm,)  were  of  this 
Number.  We  may  therefore  fixppofe  there 
were  very  few  left,  though  jbme  Chrift  feems 
to  imply  in  the  forementioned  Queftion,  who 
called  on  the  Name  of  God,  and  thus  caji  out 
Devils  §.  And  it  is  not  difficult  to  imagine, 
that  thofe  who  were  Eye-witnefles  of  this  Mi- 
racle in  our  Saviour,  might  not  have  feen  any 
Inftance  of  this  Power :  And  then  how  natu- 
rally does  that  Speech,  //  was  never  Jo  feen  in 
Ifrael,  fall  from  People  in  their  Circumftances ! 
A  little  Allowance  will  ferve  to  explain  this, 
without  taking  it  in  the  ftricl:  and  rigorous 
Senfe. 

Not  but  I  believe  and  allow  a  real  Difference 
between  our  Lord's  Difpofjejjions  and  theirs, 
which  will  juftify  even  this  Senfe,  and  fuffici- 
ently   account    for  that  Ajlonijhment   of   the 

§  Grotius  on  Mat.  xii.  27.  gives  fome  Instances  of  the  Name  of 
the  God  of  Abraham  being  ufed  in  exorcifms,  among  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  O'her  Nations.     See  alio  Hammond  on  Mat.  xii.  27. 

N.  B.  The  Enquirer,  p.  58.  to  lefen  our  Notion  of  thefe  Egyp- 
tians,  calls  them  Gypftes,  which  1  think  is  too  low  for  one  of 
his  good  Senfe, 

Jews, 


(3«   ) 

yews,  which  they  exprefled  by  laying,  what 
new  Doffr.ne  is  this  ?  for  with  Autho- 
rity commandeth  He  even  the  uncle a7i  Spirits, 
and  they  obey  Hrr,  Mark  j.  27.  Thefe  Words 
plainly  point  out  to  us  fome  Superiority  in  our 
Lord's  Cures,  above  any  they  had  feen ; 
and  this  probably  confifted  in  His  performing 
them,  without  any  of  thofe  folemn  Invocations 
and  Ceremonies,  which  they  Jhad  been  accuf- 
tomed  to,  and  by  His  bare  Word  alone,  Mat,  viii. 
16.  which  be  the  thing  denoted  by  nav 

k^bs<riav,         ■■    '    nc.r     irza-loui    iMclv.      But    this    I 

fubmit  to  tiie  learned  Reader ;  and  conclude 
theie  Ren.  Ao,  io  far  as  they  relate  to  the 
Jews,  with  the  Words  of  the  Right  Reverend 
Anther  juft  now  mentioned. — #  The  Dirpof- 
fefiions  of  evil  Spirits  performed  by  our  Lord 
were  not  only  the  immediate  Effects  of  one 
commanding  Word,  by  which  he  extorted 
the  plaineftAcknowledgments  of  His  Divinity 
from  all  manner  of  evil  Spirits— ~ -that  were 
difpolTeffed  by  him  with  greater  Efficacy, 
and  in  greater  Numbers,  than  was  ever 
known  before  ;  but  He  likewife  communi- 
cated the  fame  Power  to  others  of  cajiing  out 
Devils  in  His  own  Name,  and  thereby  evinced 
that  He  was  that  MeJJiah,  whom  He  profef- 
fed  Himlelf  to  be.  For  fuch  Difpofleifions 
"  were  not  only  made  perfonally  by  Himfelf, 
<c  but  by  others  in  His  Name,  as  they  are  fup- 
"  pofed  to  have  been  before  performed  in  the 
14  Name  of  the  true  God.      And  confequently 

"  the 


(  39  ) 

the  Pretentions  of  Jesus  to  the  MeJJiahjhip 
and  Divine  Authority,  were  not  only  other- 
wife  well  fupported,  but  received  fome 
fort  of  Confirmation  from  the  faid  Suppo- 
"  iition  f\* 

And  thus  at  laft  we  are  fallen  upon  the  proper 
Subject  both  of  the  Enquiry,  and  of  the  prefent 
EJj'ay,  the  Cafes  of  the  Demoniacks  mentioned 
in  the  New  cTeftament.  In  entring  on  which, 
p.  35,  the  Gentleman  I  am  oppofing  lays  down 
a  Rule  to  which  I  readily  agree,  "  when  we 
meet  with  plain  and  eafy  Accounts  of  things, 
we  muft  make  them  the  Standards  or  Tefts, 
by  which  we  ought  to  underftand  the  more 
difficult  Places."  And,  for  the  fame  Rea- 
fon,  jorced  and  laboured  Conductions  are  ne- 
ver to  be  chofen  without  an  abfolute  Neceffity, 
being  very  feldom  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Au- 
thor. I  mould  now  examine  the  Inflances  he 
mentions  as  plain  and  eafy,  and  fliew  that  no- 
thing can  be  collected  from  them,  in  favour  of 
his  Scheme  :  But  it  may  be  necefiary  firft  to 
obviate  a  Pretence  or  two,  which  may  lye  in 
our  way,  and  the  Error  of  which  has  been 
fully  {hewn.  "  Demon  in  none  of  the  Inftances 
already  produced  fignifies  what  we  in  En- 
gli/Jj  call  Devil."  And,  p.  38.  "  a  Devil  or 
Demon,  for  fo  it  is  always  to  be  read."  In  no 
Scripture  Inftance,  it  fignifies  what  this  Gentle- 

*  Ibid.  p.  197,    198, 

3  man 


(.C 

cc 


(  4-0  ) 

man  particularly  means  by  Demons  *,  the  Sotils 
of  departed  Men  -,  but,  always,  where  it  is  put 
for  any  Beings  at  all,  it  is  ufed,  in  the  Opinion 
of  the  facred  Writers,  for  Devils  properly  fo 
called.  "  The  Epilepfy  and  Madnefs  were  the 
u  peculiar  Diforders  attributed  to  the  Gods.  " 
That  Madnefs  in  general,  every  kind  of  Madnefs, 
was  attributed  to  the  Gods,  or  that  the  Epilepfy 
was  univerfally,  and  by  all,  fo  attributed,  has 
not  yet  appeared,  but  rather  the  contrary.  — 
Thofe,  who  were  called  Cerriti,  or  Larvati, 
or  Lymphatici,  and  were  fuppofed  to  be  af- 
fe&ed  by,  or  to  be  under  the  Dire&ion  or 
<c  Influence  of  Demons,  were  all  in  their  de- 
cc  gree  mad. "  P.  38.  Thefe  have  been  feverally 
confidered.  And  it  appears,  that  they  were  not 
common  Madmen,  but  were  aduated  by  De^ 
vils  f. 

The  firft  Text  infifted  upon  in  the  E?iquiry, 
P.  36.  is  Job.  x.  20.  He  hath  a  Devil \  and  is 
mad.  Others  faid,  theje  are  not  the  Words  of 
him  that  hath  a  Devil :  Can  a  Devil  open  the 
Eyes  of  the  blind?  Here  this  Gentleman  owns, 
c<  that  both  Sides  took  for  granted,  that  that 
<c  particular  Diforder  proceeded  from  fome  e- 
"  vil  Spirit  that  poffeffed  him.  "     But,    tho* 

*  This  Notion  of  the  Souls  of  Men  being  turned  into  Devils, 
Dr.  Hammond  calls   a  vain  Perfuafion.      On  Matt.  viii.  28. 

f  This  is  the  Opinion  of  the  great  Grotius,  who  thus  explains 
the  Word  &ouftiOHQ>fx,ve<;t  non  quovis  modo  ivfanientes,  fed  impuro- 
rum  fpirituum  vi  rnajore  correptos,  atq;  agitatos,  quales  erant 
quos  Grasci  tvpQo?*^*;,  Latini  Lcv-vatos,  Ceritos,  Lympbaticos 
vocabant.     In  Mattb.  iv.  24. 

they 


[4i  1  i 

they  were  undoubtedly  wrong  in  the  particular 
Application  to  our  Saviour ;  yet  I  fee  no  Reafon, 
why  they  were  not  right  in  the  general  Senti- 
ment, that  Madnefs  might  be  imputed  to  a  De- 
vil. .  But  here  you  will  fay,  the  Notion  of  ha- 
ving a  Devil  is   explained  by  the   following 
Words,  and  is  mad.     I  anfwer,    that  it  could 
not  be  the  Intention  of  thofe,  who  fpoke  them, 
to  explain  them  fo,    who  are  acknowledged  to 
have  believed  a  real  Po/JeJJton.     Neither  could 
this  be  the  Deiign  of  the  Evangeli/l,  who  had 
the  fame  Prejudice,  and  that,  fo  far  from  be- 
ing removed  by  our  Lord,  that  it  was  confirm- 
ed by  him.     Nor  indeed  do  the  Words  imply 
fo  much.     Nay,  from  this  very  Text,  a   late 
learned  and  excellent  Critick  has  thought,  that 
to  have  a  Devil,  and  to  be  mad,  were  two  di- 
ftinB  Cafes,  with  both  which  the  Jews  charged 
our  Lo?~d  %     But  mould  we  allow  the  utmoft 
that  can  be  collected  from  hence,  that  every 
Demoniack  was  mad,    the  Notion  of  real  Pof- 
fejjions  would  remain  the  fame.     Madftjs  may 
be  here  reprefented  as  one  Attendant,  or  Sign, 
or  Effect  of  fuch  Poj[cJjion\  but  it  will  not  there- 
fore follow,  that  it  was  the  whole  of  it  -f.     Both 
facred  and  prophane  Writers  fpeak  of  Madnefs 

*  Mr.    Tiuellii  Critical  Examination,   Sec.  Part  I  ft.  P.  97. 

-j-  To  fjt,xivio!%  igitur  pro  efFectu  potiris  in  ^</»«k^u&0  habere 
dam  eft,  quam  ut  iotus  ille  flatus  mania  conftitifie  exittimetur. 
Wolf.  Cur  a  Pbilolog.  Thus  alfo  Tertullian  makes  this  Madnefs 
to  proceed  from  the  Devil,  Compar  exitus  furoris  Cff  una  ratio  eft 
inftigationis.  Apqlo^et.  XXIII.  So  Minutiui  Fel.  Ed.  Lugd. 
Bat=  p.  39,  . 

F  very 


C   42   ] 

very  frequently,  without  the  leaft  intimation  of 
a  Demon  °,  which  fhews,  that,  as  fiich,  it  was 
looked  upon  as  a  common  T>iforder,  and  nothing 
more  ||.  To  confirm  what  I  have  faid,  I  fhall 
add  the  Words  of  an  Author  of  great  Learning 
and  Judgment.  "  The  Truth  is,  that  the  Jews 
reckoned  this  one  fort  of  Madnefs,  and  the 
worft  fort  ,  but  they  diftinguifhed  between 
this,  and  what  we  properly  call  Madnefs,  a- 
rifing  from  fome  Diftemper  of  the  Body:  So 
that  tho'  they  called  all  Perfons  poffeffed  by 
the  Devil,  by  the  Name  of  Madmen,  yet 
"  thev  did  not  <nvt  to  all  Madmen  the  Name 
C£  of  Perfons  thus  poffeffed:  And  they  diftin- 
<c  guifhed  very  rightly  in  the  Cafe.,"  &c.  §. 

We  faw  before  many  parallel  In  fiances  of 
this.  The  Author  of  the  Enquiry  helps  me  to 
another,  P.  22.  "  The  true  prophetical  Spirit 
"  is  Rational  and  Confiftent,  the  falfe  one  is  all 
cc  Tumultuous  and  Mad."  But  can  any  one 
gather  from  hence,  that  it  was  nothing  more 
than  mere  Madnejs  ?  The  Paflages  cited  from 
Virgil,  Lucanj  and  Euripides,  P.  23,  directly 
forbid  fuch  a  Suppofition.  And  the  ancient 
Fathers  made  Raving  and  Extaiies,  one  Crite- 
rion of  diabolical  Poffeffion.  I  fhall  only  men- 
tion the  Cafe  of  Montana s,  as  defcribed  "by  fome 
Author  in  Eujebius,  "  he  gave  the  Advetjary  an 
41  entrance  into  himfelf,    and  being  hurried  a- 


||   Afts   XXvi.  24.      M«tyq  riccuhi,  x,    r,   *. 

$  Mitac/es  of  Je/ui  Vindicated,   1729.  Part  2d.  P.  32. 

"  way 


<c 


(43  0 

way  by  the  Spirit,  he  began  to  be  feized 
with  a  fudden  PoJJeJJicn  and  Madnefs — Some 
rebuked  him  as  one  actuated  bv  the  DeviL 
and  in  the  Power  of  the  Spirit  of  Error*." 
As  to  the  Queftion,  Can  a  Devil  open  the 
Ryes  of  the  Blind?  Tho'  it  may  be  underflood 
of  a  Madman,  it  has  much  more  Force  and 
Strength,  when  applied  to  an  evil  Spirit.  For 
as  the  Powers  of  thefe  are  limited,  the  Jews 
might  well  think  this  a  Miracle  fuperior  to  them, 
and  a  certain  Mark  of  a  divine  Authority.  Or, 
as  they  are  fubjecl:  to  God,  it  might  with  Rea- 
fon  be  imagined,  that  he  would  not  permit 
them  to  work  fo  clear  and  undeniable  Miracles, 
as  could  not  but  deceive  the  bell:  and  moft  cau- 
tious of  Men. 

The  next  plain  and  eafy  Text  we  find  P.  37. 
It  is  j oh.  vii.  20.  'thou  hajl  a  Devil,  who  go* 
etb  about  to  kill  thee?  "  The  Meaning  of  which,'* 
fays  this  Gentleman,  wTas,  "  thou  art  mad,  fifc. 
"  ufing  the  Caufe,  the  imaginary  Caufe  for  a 
"  vilible  Effect,  which  they  conceived  natu- 
cx  rally  to  flow  from  it."  But  this  Interpreta- 
tion is  unfiipported  by  any  Proof;  and  therefore 
i,t  will  be  fufficient  to  oppofe  to  it,  that  of  Dr, 
Whitby,  which  I  think  more  probable,  and 
more  agreeable  to  the  Occafion  of  the  Anfwer. 

>£  atyn^ws  cv  xxnio%ri  rm  t<l  7ix^iK<i<x.<rn  ystof/ttivcv  s\£«<r»a»  —  o!  p,.y 
w?  ir)  Ef£^V8|%i»y  ;u  Jxij/tOvuvTi,  >Cj  ci  %\oC\v&  7rvsv/Jtjx]i  unccpwAi  — ■ 
UiTtfjum.  Hift.  Eccl.  L.  V.  c.  16.  See  Stillinpfleefs  Anfwer  to 
Q"JTh  P-  63,  &c. 

F  2  "  Thou 


(  4-4  ) 

*c  Thou  art  poffejfed  with  a  lying  Spirit?  who 
goefh,  &c. 

To  Ma-th.  xi.  18.  When  John  came  neither 
eating  nor  drinking^  they  Jay,  he  hath  a  Devil. 
I  anfwer,  <c  they  looked  upon  him  to  be"  more 
than  "mad,"  or  at  leaft  they  intend. d to  repre- 
fent  him  as  PoflcJJ'ed,  For  refolving  not  to 
hearken  to,  or  believe  him,  and  riot  knowing 
any  other  Ground  of  Accufation,  they  took  oc- 
casion from  his  living  in  fo  peculiar  a  manner*, 
to  throw  out  a  random  Reproach,  and  to  repre- 
fent  him  as  a  Demoniack.  That  by  this  Charge, 
they  intended  fomething  worfe  than  Madncjs, 
is  very  clear  from  St.  Mark,  iii. 21,22.  "  When'1 
J  ejus  s  "  Friends"  or  Relations  "  heard X)f  "  his 
gathering  Difciples,  &c.  "  they  went  out  to 
"  lay  hold  on  him,  for  they  faid,  'cri  'tiffin,  he 
cc  is  bcfide  himfelf.  And  the  Scribes  which 
<c  came  down  from  Jerufalcm  faid,  in  BteXftSxA 
£#«,  he  hath  Beelzebub ."  Here  we  fee  a  mani- 
feft  difference,  between  thefe  two  Expreffions. 
Our  Lords  Friends  at  that  Time  no  more  ap- 
proved of  his  Actions,  than  the  Scribes  did  :  But 
the  former  accounted  for  them  in  a  favourable 
manner  ||;  the  others  in  the  moft  malicious  one, 

that 

*  Perhaps,  JobnS  living  in  the  Wildcmeh  might  give  them  a 
fpecious  Qfa&pn.  For  thus  we  find  St  Luke  delcribingone  cer- 
tn inly  thought  f'lfjfjfedy   Ch.  viii.  v.  29.      »iAay>»1i  vV«  ry  fkipoyos 

tie,  ra  c  iy,\'->-  •>'- 

||  There  is  another  Interpretation  of  the  Word  *%i%*  to  be  ieen 
jnGrotitt*  and  Dr.  Whitby,  which  is,  that  he  was  faint.  But 
this  feem.s  not   to  agree   with  theO'rcumitances  of  the  Slory  fo 


cc 
cc 
CC 
cc 
cc 
cc 
<c 


(  45  ) 

that  they  could  think  of.  The  one  imputed 
them  to  Misfortune,  the  others  to  the  greateft 
Crime.  And  it  is  very  probable,  that  they  de- 
figned  to  throw  the  fame  Difgrace,  in  the  fame 
Senie,  on  the  Baptijl,  who  was  alfo  an  Object 
of  their  Envy  and  Hatred  ;  and  confequendy, 
fQ  they"  did  nqt  "  look  upon  him  to  be"  merely 
or  commonly  cc  mad." 

Let  us  next  coniider  Job.  viii.  48—52.  "  Say 
we  not  well,  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan,  and 
haft  a  Devil?  Jefus  anfwered,  I  have  not  a 
Devil,  but  I  honour  my  Father,  and  ye  do 

dijkonour  me Verily,  verily,  I  fay  unto 

you,  If  a  Man  keep  my  Saying,  he  fhall  ne- 
ver fee  Death.  Then  faid  the  Jews  unto 
Him,  now  we  know  thou  haft  a  Devil,  " 
&c.  Here  again  the  Gentleman,  P.  38,  in  a 
Paraphrafe  reprefents  the  yews,  as  charging  our 
Saviour  with  Madnefs.  But  furely,  ifwefhould 
allow,  that  having  a  Devil  was  merely  an  ima- 
ginary Caufe  of  Madnefs,  yet  it  was  what  they 

believed,  in  the  ftrid:  literal  Senfe  -,  and  there-? 

1 .. 

well  as  our  Translation.  The  plain  Oppcfition  between  the  Ac- 
counts of  our  Lord's  Friends  and  of  the  Scribes  is  alfo  here  entirely 
loft.  And,  tho'  Chrift  had  given  no  fign  of  Madnefs  to  raife  an 
(Opinion  of  this,  in  his  Relations,  (which  was  what  fwayed  the 
learned  Doclor  to  chafe  this  Interpretation)  yet,  as  St.  John  in- 
forms us,  that  it  was  fome  time  before  His  Brethren  believed  in 
Him,  they  might  be  apt  to  fear  fome  Diforder  in  His  Head,  fVom 
His  extraordinary  Proceedings  ;  or,  at  leajft,  when  they  knew  no 
other  Way  to  excufe  Him,  they  might  do  ic  in  this  Way.  2  Cor. 
y.  13.  e£eV>j/x<2»  is  oppofed  to  v&.'tyo*~wj.  Vide  Hammond  on 
Mark  iii.  21.  I  can't  emit  the  Reafon  Erafmus  gives  heis 
for  the  common  Senfe,  "  Id  ell  agnatorum,  [ut  comprehenderenc 
eum~|  fi  quia  commota:  mentis  eife  coeperit. 

fore 


(  46  ) 

fore  'tis  hard  to  conceive,  that  they  meant  to  fay 
no  more,  than  that  yon  are  really  mad,  when 
they  laid,  thou  hafl  a  Devil.     I  therefore  fhall 
beg   leave  to  offer  another  Paraphrafe,     more 
confiftent  with   their  Sentiments.     ci  Can  we 
ct  be  juftly  blamed  for  laying  on  you  thefe  Re- 
<c  proaches,  as  fevere  as,  they  are  ?  After  you 
"  have  fo  bitterly  accufed  us  of  being  the  Sons 
<c  of  the  Devil,  of  doing  his  Works,  and  of  re- 
c<  fufing  to  hear   Gods   Words,     [See   Verfes, 
44,  47]  are  we  not  in  the  right  in  faying  You 
are  a  Samaritan,   an  Enemy  to  our  Nation 
and  Woifhip,  accurfed  of  God;  and  that 
you  are  pr>(Jcj]ed  with  fome  evil  Spirit,  who . 
puihes  you  on  thus  to  dishonour  God,    and 
to  build  up  his  own  Glory,  by  the  Means  of 
yours?    The  former  Accufation   our  Lord 
thought  it  not  worth  his  while  to  reply  to  5 
but  as  this  laft  might  prejudice  the  Belief  of 
his  Miffion,  he  not  only  denies,  but  confutes 
it,  by  anfwering  them,  that  neither  his  own, 
nor  Satan's,    but  God's  Honour  alone  was 
His  End  and  Aim  ;  and  therefore,  fays  He, 
you  difconour  me,  by  this  Charge.     However, 
notwithstanding  this,    I  will  not  leave    off 
teaching  you,  that  keeping  my  Saying   is  the 
only  Means  to  bring  you  to  Life  and  Happi- 
nefs,  to  prevent  your  jre'mg  eternal  Death ; 
Vcr.  51.     The  Jercs,  mifunderftanding  this 
Speech,  and  relenting  more  Chrifi's  making 
himfdf  fupcrior  to  Abraham  and  the  Pro- 
fids,  who  had  all  died,  with  greater  Con- 
fidence 


<c 
ci 

cc 

CC 

cc 
cc 

(C 
14 

CC 
(C 

€i 

c: 


'(47  ) 

fidence  renew  their  Charge,  Now  we  hiow 
thou  haft  a  Devil :  For  nothing  but  his  Infti- 
gation  and  Pofl'effion,  could  make  thee  guil- 
ty of  fuch  intolerable  Affurance  and  Blafphe- 
my,  fo  far  to  exalt  thy  felf  above  the  beft  of 
Men  in  all  Ages.  In  anfwer  to  this,  our 
Lord  refers  to  God,  who  had  honoured  Him, 
and  confirmed  all  His  Pretentions." 
And  indeed,  if  the  Jews  had  eiteemed 
Christ  as  a  Madman  only,  'tis  amazing,  that 
they  would  enter  into  fo  long  a  Converfation 
with  Him,  and  ftill  more  fo,  that  they  mould 
at  laft  attempt  to/lone  Him  for  Bla/phemy.  'Tis 
fomewhat  unufual  to  deal  with  fuch  unfortunate 
People,  in  either  of  thefe  Ways. 

To  the  literal  Senfe  it  is  objected,  Enq.  P. 
38,  39;  that  the  jfeus  "  had  neither/^  nor 
heard  any  Demon  in  Him,  nor  in  John  the 
Baptifl,  and  yet  inftantly  they  charge  them 
with  having  one.  Whence  did  this  proceed  I 
Or  why  do  they  fay  a  Devil,  rather  than  any 
Thing  elfe  ?  They  faw  indeed  what  they, 
thought  to  be  Madnefs,  and  nodding  elfe. 
From  this  viiible  Effecl  then  they  prefently 
imagined  a  Demon,  or  Devil,  to  be  the  Cau/e, 
and  therefore  charged  Him  with  what  they 
did  not  fee,  arguing  from  the  Eff'eB  to  the 
Caufe!y  But  what  will  not  Malice  and  Pre- 
judice prompt  Men  to  ?  Is  this  the  only  Cafe, 
where  a  good  Perfon  has  been  accufed  without 
fufficient  Reafon  or  Evidence  ?  Can  it  be  denied, 
that  the  Scribes,  &c.  were  guided  by  Envy  and 
3  Rage 


(  48  ) 

Rage  againft  our  Saviour  t  Why  then  mould 
not  thefe  Paffions  have,  in  them,  their  ufual 
natural  Confequences?  And,  farther,  what  could 
they  fee  in  our  Saviour,  or  in  "John  the  Baptijl, 
which  could  give  them  the  leaft  Reafon  to  think 
either  of  them  Mad?  All  their  Words  and  Actions 
were  thofe  of  Truth,  and  Sobernefs.  There  was 
therefore  no  fuch  vifible  EffeB,  as  the  Gentle- 
man fuppofes.  In  fhort,  if  they  would  have 
taken  pains  to  have  formed  a  right  Judgment  of 
both,  they  would  have  accufed  neither  of  being 
Mad,  or  PoffeJJed:  As  it  is  certain,  they  did 
not  take  fuch  pains,  'tis  equally  eafy,  on  this 
account,  to  believe  their  accufing  them  of  the 
one,  as  of  the  other  *. 

I  have  been  the  longer  on  the  foregoing 
Texts,  becaufe  they  are  the -f  plain  and  eajy 
ones,  which  the  Author  of  the  Enquiry  fays, 
P.  39,  u  will  help  us  to  underftand  fome  o- 
<c  thers,  which  at  firh:  fight  may  appear  more 
"  intricate. "  They  are,  I  muft  fuppofe,  fuchy 
as  he  thought  cleareft  in  Proof  of  his  Suppofi- 
tion.  We  have  feen,  that  they  are  fairly  on 
our  Side.     And   therefore  I  now  go  on  with 

*  This  Gentleman  quotes  Dr.  Light/- ot,  that  the  Jews  attri- 
buted certain  great  Diforders  to  tvtl  Spirits.  If  they  went  too 
far  herein,  the  Ufe  I  would  make  of  this  their  Error  is,  to  caution 
ns  not  only  againft  it,  but  againft  the  other  extreme,  of  attempt- 
ing to  bring  every  Thing  down  to  natural Caufes. 

•j-  N.  B.  I  call  thefe  the  plain  and  cafy  ones,  purely  in  compli- 
ance with  this  Author.  For,  in  fair  Conftruclion,  thofe  Gafes 
are  moil  />/a«,  and  mod  fit  to  be  made  the  Standards  of  Interpre- 
tation, which  are  related  at  large,  with  the  greateit  Number  of 
Ciicumitances.     Whereas  thefe  are  the  fhonelt. 

more 


(  49  ) 

more  Courage  to  examine  fome  others,  which 
he  produces,  and  thinks  ought  to  be  explained 
by  thefe. 

And  the  firft  that  occurs,  is  Matth.  xvii.  15. 
the  Cafe  of  the  Lttnatick,    which  is  handled  in 
the  Enquiry,  p.  39- — r-48.     But  it  is,  I  think, 
univerfally  agreed,  that  this  was  Epileptick,  and 
fome  confiderable  Criticks  deny  that  there  was 
any  Madnefs  in  it  * :  Which  makes  me  wonder 
that  this  Gentleman  fhould,  on  the  Strength  of 
the  Englifh  Word  Lunatick,  and  the  Ambigui- 
ty of  the  Greek   (rtX<yjt#fopzvog7    contend,    that 
the  young  Klan  was  Mad,  as  well  as  Epileptkk, 
p.  42,  43.     Surely,    he  cannot  but  know,  that 
the  Word  cntyvicityfjLevog,    is  ufed  for  all  Diftem- 
pers,  on  which  the  Moon  has  any  Influence.  As 
therefore  here  was  no  fign  of  Madnefs :,  the  bare 
Word  will  not  be  fufficient  to  imply  it.  If  then 
any  Thing  can  be  colle&ed  from  this  Place,  to 
exclude  the  Agency  of  the  Spirit ;  we  muft  fay, 
that  not  "  Lunatick  and  Demoniack"  but Epi- 
leptick  and  Demoniack,  "  muft  be  the  fame." 

But,  (hall  we  then  fay,  that  this  was  no  more 
than  a  common  Epilepjy  '?  By  no  means.  All 
the  three  Evangeli/ls,  who  relate  this  Cure,  a- 
fcribe  it  to  a  Devi/,  or  dumb  Spirit.     Many  of 

. .  . 

*  2t>>7)nxgo(/.ti/us  vertunt  vulgo  Lunaticos :  fed  alia  morbi  fpecies 
defignatur,  Epilepfia  videlicet,  five  morbus  comilialif.  Caufae  funt 
quae  videntur  peritiadere  :  Lunatici  enim  vulgo  lie  difti  non  hr.bent 
fymptomata  ilia,  qua?  Mattb.  xvii.  14.  Epihpti  i  astern  habent. 
Hi  enim  faepius  in  ignem  cadunt,  &c.  Scultet.  apud  LeJgb  Crit. 
Sacr.     So  alfo  Dr.  Hammond,  in  locum. 

G  the 


<< 

JC 
(C 

<c 

u 

a 


( 50) 

the  ancient  Verfions  do  the  fame,  not  fo  much 
as  mentioning  any  particular  Diftemper  *.  In- 
deed, we  muft  own,  that  very  early  the  hea- 
then Phyficians  were  for  reducing  this  Cafe  to 
mere  Matter  and  Motion,  and  for  reprefenting 
it  as  a  natural  Diftemper.  But  how  does  Ori- 
gen  exert  himfelf  againft  fuch  ?  cc  Let  the  Phy- 
ficians," fays  he,  "  difpute  about  the  Nature  of 
Things,  imagining  that  here  was  no  unclean 
Spirit  concerned,  but  a  bare  bodily  Difor- 

der. But  we,    who  believe  the  Gofpel, 

that  this  Difeafe  was  vifibly  raifed  in  the  Pa- 
tients by  an  unclean,  deaf,  and  dumb  Spirit, 
—-will  affirm,  that  this  unclean  Spirit  watch- 
es the  Configurations  of  the  Moon"  &c.  -f- 
And  a  Chriftian  Phyfician,  tho*  he  defends  the 
Pofition,  that  the  Moon  has  an  effect  on  human 
Bodies,  yet  allows  this  Cafe  to  be  Demoniacal, 
and  attempts  to  account  for  it  on  this  Princi- 
ple[|. 

This 


*  Verf.  Perfic.  Quia  Jilium  baheo,    in  quern  damonium  fotefia- 

tem  obtinet,  &  graviflime  laborat,  &c.     Arabic.   Quia  cum  Da- 

mone  ejly  &  wexatur  *v aide  in  principiis  pleniluniorum.  —  Verf.  jE- 

thio+>.  Ma/us  Damon  frehendit  eum,  &'  murmurave  eumfacit.  Vid. 

.Walton.  Polyglot. 

■4    'IaW    fjuir   «►    $vriohoytiTu<rctvt    oct$  /k»ij/$    axx'Sufi0'    xtfv/x/X 

ifveti  fofjci&vlfq  xotrcc    To»  T07Tovt   aAAfls    <T6>[A>x]t»e»    (Tt/fJt/lcufAcc   • . 

ij-bvs  £i  *i  K7  tv  Ivuyyt'Kiu  ms-tuovltq,  on  to  vto-qf/jx  tSto  aV» 
irvtv'fJuscTos  axecSccpTe,  dXccte,  kJ  xw^»  iv  roTq  Trxfyxtriv  dvTo  Siupiircti 
t¥ttya'fAttovm——<Pi)<rcp.ivf  x>  r,  A.  Origin.  Com.  in  Mattb.  Ed. 
Huet.  V.  1.  p.  311. 

K  Pravis  Corporis  noftri  humoribus  Dacmones  fe  immi- 

fcent,  &  Lunae  quadras  appofite  fequuntur,  ut  addidti  corporali 
fpbftantis,  humorum  nempe  orgafmo,    &  apparatui  morbifico, 


C  si  ] 

This  therefore  appears  plainly  to  be  an  Epi- 
lepjy,  occafionedby  the  Operation  of  an  evil  Spi- 
rit The  Diftemper,  in  kind,  was  natural :  Yet 
the  Man  was  properly  a  Demoniack.  It  can  then 
be  no  wonder,  that  this  ihould  anfwer  fo  exact- 
ly the  Description  the  Phyficians  have  given  of 
that  Diftemper.  Nor  can  it  follow  from  hence, 
that  this  is  all  we  are  to  underftand  by  Pof- 
fejfions. 

The  Gentleman,    Enquiry  p.  34,  is    "  fenfi- 
"  ble  how  difficult  it  is  to  account  for  every 
"  Expreffion  on  thefe  Occafions,"  &c.  and  in- 
deed on  his  Hypothefis,    he  had  Reafon  to  be 
apprehenfive  of  this.     Take  the  common  Sup- 
position, and  there  will  be  very  little  difficulty. 
Why  therefore  mould  we  indulge  any  forced 
and  ftra.ned  Conjtyc7uresy  and  only  involve  our- 
felves  k^more  Uncertainty  ?  This,  I  fear,  will  be 
the  Cdnfequence,  if  we  leave  the  literal  Mean- 
ing, and  follow  him  in  his  new  Criticifms  on 
Ver.  2 1 .     Howbeit  this  kind  goeth  not  out,  but 
by  Prayer  and  Fa/ling.     This  St.  Mark  exprefly 
reprefents  as  our  Lord's  Anfwer  to  that  Quefti- 
on  of  His  Difciples,  why  could  not  we  caft  him 
out  ?  And  yet,  becaufe  St.  Matthew  mak^s  this 
only  one  part  of  His  Anfwer,  and  prefixes  to  it 
a  Sentence,    importing  the  Neceffity  and  Pre- 
valence of  Faith,  this  Author  imagines  the  An- 

multo  facilius  segrotos  divexent,  corpora  contorqueant,  &  ani- 
morum  falfa  imagination  in  abfurda  prxcipitent.  Gulielm. 
Ader.  de  Morbh  Evang.  Enar.  IV.  Apud  Critic.  Sacr.  Tom.  9. 
p.  3366. 

G  2  Jwer 


C  52  ] 

fwer  flops  here,  and  that,    what  <c  follows  a- 
iC  bout  the  Neceffity  of  Fajling  and  Prayer, 
<£  may  not  relate  to  the  Difficulty  they  propo- 
"  fed,"  P.  45,  46.     But  if  it  did  not,  can  we 
think  St.  Mark  would  have  wrote  only   this, 
and  dropt  the  whole  of  fo  proper  and  ufeful  an 
Anfwer,  to  a  Queftion  of  fuch  Confequence? 
And  what  Inconfiftency  is  there  in  thefe  two 
Conditions,  that  they  can't  both  <c  relate  to  the 
"  Difficulty?"    Is  Faith,  that  which  qualified 
them  to  eje£t,  Devils  ?    And,  may  net  Prayer 
and  Fa/ling  be  the  Means  to  procure  an  increafe 
of  Faith  ?  On  the  other  hand,  is  it  to  thefe  Du- 
ties, that  this  Miracle  was  owing  ?  And,  could 
they  be  performed  rightly  without  Faith  ?  Do 
not  they  derive  all  their  Virtue  and  Acceptance 
with  God  from  this  Divine  Principle  ?    But  let 
St.  Matthew  explain  himfelf,  Ch.xxi.  ver.  21, 
22.     Howfoon  is  the  Fig-tree  withered  away  ? 
Jesus  anjuered  and  J  aid  unto  than.     Verily  I 
fay  unto  you,    if  ye  have  Faith  and  doubt  not, 
ye  (hell  not  only,  do  this  which  is  done  to  the  Fig- 
tree,  but  alfo,  if  ye  jh  all  fay  unto  this  Mountain, 
be  thou  removed,    a?id  be  thou  caft  into  the  Sea  ; 
it /hall  be  d?ic.     And  all  things,  whatfoever  ye 
(hall  ajk  in  Pk  a v i;  $  ,  B  E  h  1 1 v  1  n  g,  ye  Jhall  re* 
t  rive.     We  fee  here  Faith  and  Prayer  joined  to- 
gether, and  both  made  the  Grounds  of  a  Pow- 
er to  work  the  moft  difficult  Miracles.   And,  as 
for  Fajling,    we  know  this   is  in  Scripture  re- 
.  prefented  as  an  Attendant  of  fervent,  effectual 
.  Prayer.     But  this  Gentleman,  />.  44,  feems  to 
4  think, 


(53  ) 

think,  that  this  Fajiing  was  to  be  practifed  by 
the  Patient  *.  Elfe,  to  what  end  is  he  fo  par- 
ticular in  giving  us  the  Determinations  of  the  old 
Phyficians,  that  Fajiing  is  of  Service  in  Epilep- 
tick  Cafes  ? 

Now  let  us  confider,  what  we  find  urged  a- 
gainft  the  common  Interpretation,  Enq.  p.  46. 
"  A  miraculous  Power  was  neceffary  to  cure 
"  this  Diforder  in  the  Way  which  Jesus  cured 
"  it.  Is  a  miraculous  Power  to  be  attained  by 
<c  Fajiing  and  Prayer?  Or  cannot  a  fupernatu- 
€C  ral  Power  cure  a  Diforder,  fuppoling  k  to  be 
cc  granted  to  Men,  as  it  was  to  the  Apoftles,  un- 
"  lefs  they  fajl  and  pray  for  the  Removal  of 
"  the  Diforder  ?  "  The  Queftion  is  not,  what 
a  Supernatural 'Power  can  do,  or  in  what  man- 
ner it  may  work  Cures  ?  But^  whether  the  Au- 
thor of  Supernatural  Power  did  not  lay  down 
thefe  Duties,  as  Conditions  neceffary  to  the  at- 
taining it,  or  to  the  due  Exercife  of  it  ?  The 
Gifts  of  Healing  were  certainly  miraculous  Pow- 
ers. And  yet  we  learn  from  St.  James,  that 
thefe  very  Conditions  were  required,  without 
which  thofe  Powers  were  not  ufed.  The  Pray- 
er of  Faith,  Jhall  fave  the  Sick  -jr ,  v.  1 5.  — 
"  Our  Saviour  Him/elf  did  neither  fajl  nor 
"  pray,   notwithstanding  He  cured  the  Youth." 

*  Indeed,  p.  46.  He  denies  that  Fajiing  and  Prayer  was  re- 
quired of  the  diJiempered?tv(on,  in  order  to  his  Cure.  But  itill 
1  am  at  a  lofs  to  account  for  all  thofe  Citations,  where  Fajiing  is 
prefcribed. 

f  Vid.  Whitby  in  Loc. 

Thefe 


(C 
(C 

cc 


(  54  ) 

Thefe  might  be  neceflary  in  the  Difciples,  tho' 
they  were  not  fo  in  Him;  unleis  they  could 
pretend  to  Divine  Power,  in  the  iam«j  manner, 
that  He  had  it;  or  unlefs  they  were  as  (lire  that 
their  Faith  would  never  fail.  — -  But  "  He  mar- 
ges them  with  Unbelief  only,  and  not  with 
neglect  of  Fajiing  and  Fraying  as  the  Rea- 
fon,  why  they  did  not  cure  the  Diibrder. " 
Tho'  Unbeliefs  firft  and  moft  plainly  charged, 
yet  the  others  follow,  and  are  fufficiently  men- 
tioned.  "  Nor  did  theDifciples  afterwards 

ever  faji  and  pray  (that  we  read  of)  in  order 
to  cure  any  Diftempers,  or  to  caft  out  any 
Devils!'  We  read,  that  St.  James  exhorted 
Jick  Perfons,  to  call  for  the  Elders  of  the  Church, 
that  they  might  pray  over  them,  and  to  this  he 
encourages  them,  by  promifing,  that  the  Prayer 
of  Faith  fiall  fave  the  Sick  *.  At  leaft  therefore 
they  prayed  to  "  cure  Diftempers.  "  And  they 
might  ufe  this  Means  in  cafting  out  Devils  too ; 
for  the  Silence  of  Scripture  in  thefe  Circumstan- 
ces, will  hardly  be  allowed  to  prove  the  contra- 
ry. Befides,  are  we  obliged  to  fuppofe,  that 
Prayer  and  Fajiing  were  immediately  neceflary 
before  fuch  Cures  ?  Perhaps,  they  were  fo. 
For  my  own  part,  I  believe  them  generally  to 
have  been  fo.  But  the  Objection  vanishes,  if 
we  fuppofe  them  only  to  have  been  antecedently 
neceflary  to  procure,  and  to  keep  up,  that  mira- 

*  In  this  manner  is  St.  Peter  related  to  rz\(e  Tab i/ ha  to  life  ;  be 
kneeled  d<ru.n  and  %r  axed,  and  turning  to  the  Body,  /aid,  &c.  Adts 
ix.  4u. 

culous 


(55) 

culous  Faith,  which  is  the  fpecial  Gift  of  Gorx 
In  this  Senfe,  we  are  fure  the  Apoftles  complied 
with  thefe  Conditions.  Nor  can  I  fee,  what 
hinders  this  Gentleman's  thinking,  "  that  our 
<c  Saviour  gave  this  Direction  to  inform  His 
"  Difciples,  that  this  Faith — was  to  be  fought 
"  for  by  flagrant  Devotion,  that  it  might 
"  never  be  wanting  to  them."  This  is  Dr.  Whit- 
by's Interpretation  :  And  fuch  a  Defign  is  per- 
fectly agreeable  to  Infinite  Wifdom,  and  to  the 
Occafion  of  the  Direction  itfelf. 

The  Conjecture  of  the  Phyfician  at  firft 
View  looks  ingenious  enough,  cv  arjocrs;^  v^eue, 
in  conftant fajting,  inftead  of  ov  7r?o<revxy  jL  vv\- 
?eia.  But  Fajiing  and  Prayer  are  too  often 
mentioned  together  in  Scripture  to  allow  us  to 
think  of  altering  the  Text,  without  any  Au- 
thority, or  Neceffity.  Nor  will  even  this  be 
an  Anfwer,  as  St.  Mark  makes  this  Sentence 
to  be,  to  the  Queftion  propofed  by  the  Difci- 
ples.  

But  this  Gentleman  choofes  to  drop  his 
Friend's  Emendation,  and  propofes  a  new  In- 
terpretation of  his  own,  which  is,  cc  that  the 
Phrafe,  by  Fajiing  and  Prayer,  is  prover- 
bially ufed,  and  implies  great  Difficulty  only, 
and  that  our  Lord  defigned  to  oppofe  to  the 
ufual  length  of  Time,  and  Difficulty  of 
Cure,  the  Speed  and  Eafe,  with  which  he 
had  removed  this  Diftemper."  P.  47,  48. 
As  he  "  refers  this  to  the  Reader's  Judgment," 
I  hope  I  (hall  not  give  any  Offence  by  declaring 

mine  . 


cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


(  56  ) 

mine ;  that  it  is  a  ftrained  Expofition  ;  that  it 
is  hardly  to  be  reconciled  with  the  Relation  in 
St.  Matthew,  and  not  at  all  with  St.  Mark's  -y 
and  that,  if  the  common  literal  Senfe  be  not 
abfolutely  unintelligible,  there  is  no  room  to 
confider,  whether  one  fo  foreign  mould  be 
received.  It  might  have  been  expected,  that 
fo  learned  and  ingenious  a  Writer  mould  have 
given  us  fome  Authority,  one  Inftance  at 
leaft  from  any  Author  of  Credit,  of  this  Phrafe's 
being  fo  ufed.  But  this  he  has  not  done,  and 
I  believe  would  be  much  puzzled  to  do.  For, 
as  to  the  Proverb,  nee  prece,  nee  pretio,  it  is  far 
from  fimilar  or  parallel ;  prece  here  no  more 
fignifying  what  the  Scriptures  mean  by  Prayer, 
than  pretio  does  fafiing.  We  have  an  EngliJJi 
Proverb,  not  unlike  this  Latin  one.  We  fay  a 
thing  can  neither  be  got  for  Love,  nor  Money. 
Words,  which  carry  a  very  different  Idea,  from 
a  Diftemper  not  being  cured  by  Prayer  nor 
Fajling. 

The  next  Inftance  of  a  Demoniack  we  are  to 
view,  is  that  mentioned  by  St.  Matthew,  St. 
Mark,  and  St.  Luke*  with  but  little  Variation  ; 
Out  of  whom  the  Legion  of  Devils  were  calf, 
and  fuffered  to  enter  into  the  Swine.  This  the 
Author  of  the  Enquiry  confiders,  p.  48. — 53. 
And  indeed,  if  he  can  reconcile  this  to  his 
Scheme,  I  think,  we  muft  be  obliged  to  yield 
up  the  Point.  "  For  in  the  Inftance  of  this 
"  Miracle  before  us,  we  find,   that  the  Devils 

*  Mat.  viii.  28.     Mark  v.  2.     Luke  viii.  27. 

fpake 


cc 

(C 

cc 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 


(  57  ) 

ic  fpake  out  of  the  pofleffed  Perfons,  they  were 
"  fent  out  of  them,  and  they  entered  into  the 
fc  Herd  of  Swine  :  Perfonal  Actions  as  well 
as  Speeches  are  afcribed  to  them,  which  can 
never  be  afcribed  to  mere  Phrenzy  and  Mad- 
nefs :  For  had  there  been  nothing  more  thaii 
Madnefs,  then,  when  it  ceafed  in  the  Men, 
it  would  have  had  no  Influence  on  the  Swine ; 
whereas  that,  which  went  out  of  the  one,  and 
entered  into  the  other,  muft  have  a  diftinct 
Being  and  Exiftence  of  its  own  *."  Thus 
are  the  Circumftances  of  this  Stoty  fliortly  and 
excellently  fiimmed  up  by  a  Writer,  from 
whom  I  took  the  liberty  to  borrow  a  Paffage 
before.  And  if  thefe  Difficulties  can  be  an- 
fwered  to  Satisfa£tion,  I  believe  all  others  may 
be  more  eafily  got  over :  There  being  no  other 
Account,  where  the  Operation  of  evil  Spirits 
is  fo  plainly  and  particularly  defcribed.  Let 
us  therefore  examine,  what  we  find  objected 
againft  the  literal  Meaning,  and  what  is  reply'd, 
in  Anfwer  to  the  feveral  Queflions,  which  will 
arife  from  the  whole  Hiftory. 

From  the  Accounts  "  of  this  unhappy 
Man,"  this  Gentleman  "  obferves,  ift, 
here  was  a  Perfon  not  in  his  right  Mind; 
running  about  naked  -,  plucking  afunder  his 
Chains  or  Fetters  -y  no  one  could  tame  him  $ 
— Thefe  are  all  ordinary  Symptoms  of  Lu- 
nacy or  Madnefs,  &c."  I  grant,  that  this 
Demoniack,   fuppoiing  him  really  fuch,    might 

*  Miracles  of  Jefus  Vindicated,  ubi  fupra. 

H  well 


(  58  ) 

well  be  faid  to  be  not  in  his  right  Mind :  But  I 
deny,  that  it  therefore  follows,  that  he  was  a 
mere  Madman.  Enough  has  been  faid  already, 
to  difprove  any  fuch  Confequence.  Nor  "  are 
"  thefe  all  ordinary  Symptoms  of"  common 
"  Lunacy''  Surely,  whether  Madmen  can  be 
cured  or  not ;  if  once  taken,  they  may  be 
bound  with  Fetters.  If  they  can't  be  tamed ; 
yet  there  is  no  fuch  Difficulty  in  confining  them. 
And  therefore  I  think  the  Author  of  the  Quef- 
tions  and  Anfwers  to  the  Orthodox,  in  the 
Works  of  Jujlin  Martyr,  had  good  Reafon  to 
attribute  this  extraordinary  Degree  of  Power, 
which  appears  in  the  Inftance  before  us,  not  to 
the  Per/on  pofieffed,  but  to  the  Devil  himfelf  *. 
But  we  are  told,  p.  76.  "  That  thefe  Expref- 
"  fions,  no  Man  could  bind  him,  no  not  with 
"  Fetters,  can  mean  no  more  than  this,  that 
"  the  difordered  Perfon  had  been  often  bound 
"  with  Fetters  arid  Chains,  and  he  had  often 
"  broke  lcofe."  Yes,  certainly,  they  may  mean 
more,  and,  in  their  plain  Meaning,  <&#mean 
more.  And  though  the  Senfe  this  Gentleman 
gives  might  take  Place,  in  cafe  the  literal  one 
were  unintelligible  5  yet,  when  there  is  no  fuch 

•  $u*ft.  XLI.    "  \i  it  be   the  Property  of  God  to  give 
"  Strength,  how  could  the  Devils  enable  the  Man  to  break  his 


«'  Chains,"  &c?  We  fee,  the  Queflion  fuppofes  fome  Supernatural 
Power.      The  Anjhuer   is,   'O    ru  <ruu.u\   taueta-^t*  «  ^*»/*«»   rvf 

of/jfjef*?  XjN  hxtfio-o-fit  ru  ^uryict  >£  r*s 
'ham  <n»t'rpi£t  t£  /iiffao-o-i  ru  cttrpu  x) 
ty-Q    ru  oetifstuiutli  vao<rvfyt    rS  JW/6cy&» 

Difficulty, 


0t»*[A,irt  wfos   to    «JWo-0*i  cW]ftc«>   x^  &xfpi<ro-u>  ru  ^uryiu  xj  ruq 
ru;  <*' Wn?  u  xj  if  Su*  yfxQ 


(59  ) 

Difficulty,  there  can  be  no  Neceffity  to  allow 
it.  However  even  here  the  Obje&ion  returns. 
What  mere  Madmen  do  we  hear  of,  who,  hav- 
ing been  often  bound  with  Fetters,  and  Chains, 
have  Strength  enough  as  often  to  pluck  afunder 
the  Chains,  and  to  break  the  Fetters  in  Pieces  f 
It  is  natural  to  imagine,  that  if  he  had  got 
loofe  once  or  twice  (as  we  have  known  a  late 
Inftance  of  this  in  one  not  mad)  by  the  Means 
of  human  Strength  or  Art :  This  could  not 
have  been  often  done;  and  it  muft  have  put 
his  Keepers,  when  once  they  had  got  him  again, 
upon  furer  Means  to  have  fecured  him  effectu- 
ally. 

The  Enquirer,  p.  50.  lays  a  good  deal  of 

Strefs  on  the  Obfervation,  that  the  Man,  into 
whom  ma?iy  Devils  had  entered,  is  fometimes 
reprefented,  "  as  poflefled  by  one  only  Spirit/' 
But,  for  my  own  Part,  I  can't  fee,  what 
this  has  to  do  with  the  prefent  Debate,  or  what 
real  Ufe  it  can  have.  By  the  Evangelijls 
fpeaking  fo  indifcriminately,  we  muft  fuppofe, 
that  they  did  not  imagine  it  a  Point  of  fuch 
Confequence.  Thefe  Variations  are,  in  them- 
felves,  trifling ;  and  fuch,  as  few  of  the  beft 
Writers  are  entirely  free  from  *.  As  this  is  no 
Prejudice  to  the  Miracle,  which  it  was  the  Bu- 
finefs  of  the  Go/pels  to  record  and  teftify  5  fo 
neither  is  it  to-- the 'literal Sen fe  of  it,    which  it 

*  We  have  many  Inftances  of  this  change  of  Number,  in 
Dm.  xii. 

H  2  is 


(  60  ) 

is  my  Defign  to  vindicate  and  fupport.  Our 
Queftion  is  not,  whether  one  or  more  Devils 
were  caft  out  ?  But,  whether  there  were  any 
at  all? 

But,    from  hence   the  Gentleman  collects, 
"  That  this  Account   of  many  Devils  was  no- 
"  thing  elfe  but  the  Man's  Imagination,   and 
"  not  the  Truth  of  Things  :  For  to  call  out 
t£  one  Devil,  when  a  Legion  was  in  him,  was  re- 
"  ally  doing  no  fervice  to  the  Perfon  afflicted." 
Still  I  muft  confefs  my  felf  at  a  Lofs  to  under- 
ftand,   what  can  be  the  Purpofe  of  this  Re- 
mark, or  what  could  induce  him  to  make  it. 
For  was  only  one  Devil  called  out?  But,  every 
one  of  the  Evangelijls,  when  they  record  their 
being  cajl  out,  fpeak  of  them   in  the  Plural. 
And  St.  Mark  v.  12.  fays,   all  the  Devils  be- 
fought  Him,  &c.  How  then  was  "  The  Account 
"  of  man  •;  Devils,  not  the  Truth  of  Things  Vy 
How  could  it  have  been  more  plainly  fet  down, 
even  on  Suppofition,   that  it  had  been  the  Truth 
of  Things  ?  And  I  obferve  farther,  that  this  is 
fo  far  from  being  "  nothing  elfe  but  the  Man's 
"  Imagination,"  That  St.  Luke  recites  it,  not 
as  the  Man's  W  ords,  but  as  his  own  Reafon  or 
Explication   of  the  Name  Legion.     For  thus 
we  read   in  his    Gofpel,  viii.  30.    And  Jesus 
asked  him,  what  is  thy  Name  ?  And  hefaid  Le- 
gion :    Becaufe  many  Devils  were  entered  into 
Him. 

In  the  4th  Obfervation,  p.  51.  There  are 
two  or  three  Miftakes,  which  have  been  evi- 
dently 


(  6i.) 

(Jently  confuted  already.  On  the  Strength 
therefore  of  what  has  been  faid,  I  (hall  venture 
to  contradid  them,  and  to  affert,  that  "  to 
"  have  a  Devil  and  to  be  mad  is"  not  <c  the 
"  fame  thing  "  that  ?  this  Man  was"  not 
cc  confidered  merely  as  a  Madman-"  and  that, 
when  he  faid  his  Name  was  Legion,  this  was 
not  "  the  Anfwer  of  a  mere  Madman"  but 
the  involuntary  Confeflion  of  wicked  Spirits. 

tc  Taking  him  for  a  Madman,  could   any 
"  thing  be  more  natural,    than  what  pafled  ?" 
The  Anfwer  is  eafy.     Many  Particulars  of  his 
Conduct  have  no  Relation  to  Madnefs :  And 
others,  which  might  poffibly  have  proceeded  from 
this,  are  much  better  accounted  for,  on  theSup- 
pofition  of    his  being  a  Demoniack.     Of  this 
lafl  Sort  we  have  an  Inftance  in  this  Pap;e.  "  It 
"  was — natural  for  him,   confidering  him  as 
{C  a  yewy  in  his  mad  fit,  to  ask  that  the  Devils, 
"  which  were  in  him,  might  be  permitted  to 
<c  enter  into  the  Herd  of  Swine,  which   he 
<c  faw   juft  before  him.     The  Sight  of  them 
"  Would  naturally  put  the  odd  Image  into  his 
"  Head."     Not  to  infift  upon  the  learned  Dr. 
Lightfoofs  Reafons   for  believing  him  to  have 
been  a  Gadaren,    and  not  a  yew,    -f*  we  will 
fuppofe  this  a  probable  Account.      But  is  it  not 
more  fo,  to  imagine  this  a  Petition  of  evil  Spi- 
rits ?  What  can  be  more  fuitable  to  their  Na- 
ture and  Difpofition,  than  a  Delight  in  doing 
Mifchief  ?  What  ftronger  Pi&ure  can  we  have 

f  Vid.  Whitby  on  Mark  v.  2. 

of 


(    62    ) 

of  this  Temper,  than  this  before  us >  that  when 
they  were  going  to  be  deprived  of  the  Power 
of  hurting  Men's  Bodies,  they  defire  leave  to 
damage  them,  in  their  PoJfeJJions?  Befidesthe 
excellent  Obfervations  of  Theophylaff  on  this 
Hiftory,  and  Dr.  Hammond's  Reafons  for 
Chrift's  not  forbidding  the  Confequences,  tend 
fo  much  to  the  Honour  of  God's  Power,  and 
Juftice,  and  Goodnefs;  that  they,  of  themfelves, 
mightily  incline  us  to  believe,  that  Senfe  to  be 
the  true  one,  from  which  they  are  drawn  "f*, 

We  have  alfo  in  this  Page  two  Pafiages, 
which,  I  apprehend,  are  very  unnatural  and  un- 
intelligible, if  we  take  the  afflicted  Perfon  to  be 
nothing  more  than  a  Madman.  The  firft  is, 
jiis  worJJjipping  Jesus,  and  faying,  'what  have 
I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  God  moft 
High  ?  I  bejeech  thee  torment  me  not.  Now 
thefe  Words,  if  afcribed  to  an  unclean  Spirit 
are  eafy  and  plain.  The  Devils  knew  him  to  be 
the  Chriji.  They  knew  him  alfo  to  be  come  to 
deftroy  them  utterly  -,  and  to  have  often  dif- 
played  His  Power  in  cafling  them  out.  This 
muft  be  granted,  if  we  allow  them  no  fuperior 
Knowledge  to  Men.  But  then  how  natural  is 
it  for  Beings  in  thefe  Circumflances,  confcious 
of  their  Guilt,  and  feeing  their  Deftroyer,  to 
be  apprehenfive  of  Punifhment?  And  how 
well  do  thefe  Words  exprefs  at  once  their  Con- 
viction and  Fear?  Whereas  if  we  put  thefe 
in  the  Mouth  of  a  mere  Madman,  there  will  be 

f  See  thefe  in  Whitby,   on  Mark  v.  14. 

this 


(63  > 

this  glaring  Inconfiftency,  that  we  fuppofe  fuch 
a  one,  in  the  fame  Breath,  declare  his  Belief 
in  the  true  Nature  and  Bulinefs  of  our  Lord* 
and  his  utter  Ignorance  thereof.  Which  Con~ 
tradition  'tis  very  hard  to  imagine  even  a  Mad- 
man guilty  of.  The  firft  Part,  it  is  certain, 
betrays  no  Diforder  :  Nothing  can  be  more 
confiftent  and  rational.  What  Authority  or 
Warrant  have  we  therefore  to  interpret  the 
Words,  which  immediately  follow,  in  fuch  a 
Senie,  as  nothing  but  the  moft  exceffive  Raving 
can  juftify  ?  Do  but  take  the  whole  of  this 
Cafe.  Our  Lords  Miracles  had  raifed  a  Fame 
of  him.  A  Man,  who  had  been  long  afflicted, 
and  who  had  heard  this  Fame,  and  thence 
knew  him  to  be  the  Chrijl,  met  Him,  fell  down 
at  His  Feet,  worjhipped  Him,  declared  his 
Knowledge,  and  Conviction,  and  yet  in  the 
fame  Moment,  faid,  he  had  nothing  to  do  with 
Him,  and  begged  Him  not  to  torment  Him. 
Imagine  this  Affliction  to  have  been  Madnefs,  if 
you  will.  Yet,  this  was  not  upon  him,  when 
he  firft  met  our  Saviour.  Nor  is  here  the  leaft 
Intimation,  that  it  afterwards  fo  Jiidde?ily  feized 
him.  He  muft  be  fuppofed  at  firft  to  come 
with  Hopes  and  a  Defire  of  being  cured  :  He 
is  alfo  fuppofed  to  have  heard  of  our  Lord's 
Cures.  How  could  he  therefore  think  of 
being  tormented  by  Him  ?  How  could  he 
think,  "  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  "  one, 
whom  he  had  juft  owned  to  be,  "  the  holy  One 
of  God,  who  "  was  already  fa  famous  for 
i  His 


(64) 

His  curing  all  manner  of  Difeafes.?"  Enqi 
p.  69. 

Thefe  are  Difficulties  attending  this  Suppon- 
tion ;  and  which  I  can't  but  think  much  harder 
than  any,  which  follow  the  common  Applica- 
tion. Others  will  appear  by  and  by,  when  we 
fhall  have  Occafion  to  refume  the  Confidera- 
tion  of  this  Text. 

No  lefs  hard  to  account  for,  if  we  reject  the 
literal  Interpretation,  is  our  Lord's  Anfwer, 
wherein  He  gives  them  leave  to  go.  This  is 
clear  enough  if  underftood,  -as  fpoken  to  the 
Devils.  No  Objection  can  be  raifed,  but  what 
may  be  eafily  anfwered.  But  the  Enquirer 
muft  excule  me,  if  I  cannot  think  his  Mean- 
ing fo  free  from  it  "  All  this."  he  tells  us, 
p.  52.  "  is  no  more  than. concerning  Himfelf 
"  with  the  fantaftick  Humour  of  a  Madman, 
"  but  humouring  him,  while  he  cured  him." 
But,  in  my  Opinion,  this  "  is  concerning 
"  Himfelf  with"  it  greatly.  Befides,  fuch  a 
Comment  has  no  Countenance  from  the  Style 
of  Scripture,  nor  from  the  Nature  of  the  Cafe. 
Not  from  the  Stile  of  Scripture,  which  affords 
us  nothing  parallel,  which  never  reprefents  our 
Lord  as  directing  an  Anfwer  to  no  Body,  but  on- 
ly feeming  to  anfwer  Beings  not  prefent,  in  order 
to  humour  a  Madman,  who  conceived  they  were. 
- — Nor  from  the  Nature  of  the  Cafe  ;  there  be- 
ing no  End  or  Uie  of  His  thus  hu??iouri?ig  him. 
This  indeed,  in  the  Application  of  natural 
Remedies,  may  be  fometimcs  neceflary  to  faci- 
litate, 


(  65   ) 

• 

litate  the  Cure.  But  Miracles  never  ftand  in  need 
of  any  fuch  to  forward  their  Succefs.  And  there- 
fore we  have  no  Reafon  to  believe  our  Lord  did 
it  here. 

But  the  Confequence  fhews,  that  this  Speech 
of  our  Lord's  was   not  barely  "  humouring 
"  the  Man  while  he  cured  him,"  but  that  it  had 
a  real,  a-manifeft,  and  moft  furprizing  Effect. 
I'he  Devils   went  out  of  the  Man,  and  entered 
into  the  Swine:    and   the  Herd  ran    violently 
down  a  Jleep  Place   into  the  Lake,    and  were 
choaked.     This  the  Gentleman  owns,   p.  52.  to 
be  "  the  main  Difficulty."     Let  us  fee  how  he 
gets   over   it.     "  All    this   Legion    of   Devils 
"  was  nothing  but  the  Madman's  talk." — We 
faw  before,    that  St.  Luke  himfelf  confirmed 
this  talk,  by  affigning  the  Reafon  of  this  Name: 
Becaufc  many  Devils  were   e?itered  into  kirn. 
And   we  have   the  Teftimony  of  our  Author 
himfelf,  that  "  all  the  three  Evangelifts  agree 
"  in  telling  us,  that  the  Devils  entered  the  SwineT 
How  then  is  this  "  nothing  but  the  Madman  § 
"talk?"  To  proceed: 

If  therefore  by  any  Accident  the  Swine  ran 
down  the  Precipice,  whilft  the  Man  or  Men, 
were  under  Cure,  whether  drove  down,  or 
frighted  down  by  the  Madmen,  this  would 
folly  anfwer  all  the  Story."  No,  moft  cer- 
tainly   it  would,  not. Whether  or  no    to 

have  a  Devil,  and  to  be  Mad,  mean  the  fame 

Thing;  to  have  a  Devil,  and  to  be  accidentally 

frighted,  will  never  be  allowed  to  do  fo.     For 

I  then 


<c 

cc 
<< 


(  66  ) 

then  it  may  follow,  that,  in  many  Inftances, 
here  was  nothing  but  an  uncommon  Fright, 
and  confequently  no  occafion  for  any  Miracle. 
I  would  not  be  underftood  to  charge  the  Enqui- . 
rer  with  intending  this  Confequence,  the  con- 
trary to  which  he  has  afferted,  both  in  the  En- 
trance, and  Conclufion  of  his  Piece.  And  there- 
fore I  muft  look  on  this,  as  a  Sign  of  the  Di- 
ftrefs  he  was  in ;  and  farther,  as  an  Interpreta- 
tion he  feems  not  fatisfied  with  himfelf.  For, 
as  if  he  fufpe&ed  it,  he  immediately  offers  a- 
nother. 

But  fuppofing  this  Conjecture will  not 

fufficiently  account  for  the  Expreffions  of  the 
Evangelifls,  I  conceive,  that  there  can  be  no 
greater  Difficulty  in  this  Cafe,  than  there  is 
in  one  Man's  Diftemper  paffing  into  another 
Man,  &c. "  Difeafes  communicated  by  7/z- 
feblion  muft  here  be  fet  afide,  Madnefs  not  be- 
ing fuch  a  one.  And  other  Diftempers  can't 
pafs  into  another  Man,  but  by  Supernatural 
Infliction,  which  can't  be  pretended  to  be  the 
Cafe  here.  Let  us  illuftrate  this  by  the  Hiftory 
of  Gehazi,  to  whom  the  Leprofy  of  Naaman 
was  to  cleave,  2  Kings  v.  27.  Since  this  is  the 
Inftance  this  Gentleman  pitches  upon,  p.  53, 
and  chufes  to  compare  with  the  prefent  Cafe. 
Here  the  firft  Difference  that  occurs,  is,  that 
tho'  the  Lepro/ies  of  Naaman  and  Gehazi  were 
the  fame,  in  kind,  yet  they  can't  be  thought 
one  and  the  fame  Leprcjy.  It  did  not  "  pafs  from 
0  the  one  to  the  other,"  nor  was  it  immedi- 
ately 


cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


C  67  ] 

ately  communicated.     Whereas,  if  by  Devi 'Is •, 
in  the  Gofpels,    we  muft  mean  Madnefs,    it  is 
certain,  that  it  was  the  f elf  fame  M> adnefs,  from 
which  the  Man  was  delivered,  which  feized  the 
Swine :  Since  the  fame  Devils,  which  went  out 
of  him,  are  faid  to  have  entered  into  thefe.  zdly, 
'The  Leprofy  of  Gehazi  was  plainly  a  Judgment 
upon  him  for  his  Covetoufhefs,  which  God  was 
not  only  pleafed  to  permit ,  but  dire&ly  i?jfic~led. 
But,  it  would  be  ridiculous  to  imagine  this  of 
the  Swine  -,  nor  have  we  fufficient  Warrant  to 
fay  any  fiich  Thing  of  the  Owners  of  them. 
And  our  Lord,  by  two  of  the  Evangelifts,  is 
only  faid  to  have,  permitted,  or  given  the  Devils 
leave  to  enter  into  the  Herd.      Which  implies 
nothing  active  in  our  Lord,  as  Grotius  has  ob- 
ferved.     So  that,  we  find  thefe  two  Cafes  very 
different.     Nor  will  the  Scripture  Account  of 
Gehazi 's  Leprofy  at  all  help  us  to  "  refolve  the 
<c  Inftance  before  us,"    or  to  conceive  how  the 
fame  Madnefs,    under  the  Notion   of  Devils, 
could  leave  the  Man  and  feize  the  Swine. 

At  prefent,  I  take  my  leave  of  this  Inftance, 
till  this  Gentleman  gives  me  caufe  to  take  it  in 
hand  again,  and  to  confider  his  Explication  of 
fome  other  Circumftances  relating  to  it,  and 
what  he  has  offered  in  reply  to  the  Argument 
arifing  from  hence.  I  now  attend  him  to  view 
the  Cafe  of  the  Pythonefs,  Adh  xvi.  16.  which, 
P%  53>  54>  he  fays,  "  is  that  of  a  Perfon  that 
<c  pretended  to  tell  Fortunes;  and  engaged  the 
"  Attention  of  the  People,  bv  fpeaking  inward- 

I  2  "  ly. 


C  68  ] 

ly.  This  was  called  a  Spirit  of  Divination  ■-, 
and  when  fhe  was  difcovered,  {lie  was  difa- 
bled  from  playing  this  Trick  any  longer,  by 

St.  Paul's  faying  to  her, /  command  thee 

to  come  out  of  her.  No  more  was,  or  could 
be  meant,  than  to  put  a  flop  to  the  Trick 


u 

cc 
U 
cc 
cc 
cc 

<c  the  Woman  ufed.  She  was  not  zDemoniack 
M  in  theSenfe  of  thofe,  that  are  mentioned  in 
"  the  Gofpels."  This  is  the  whole  of  this  Gen- 
tleman's Account,  which  I  can't  but  think  very 
different  from  St.  Luke's.  Here  fhe  is  reprefent- 
ed  not  as  a  mere  Fortune-teller,  but  as  pofjejjed 
with  a  Spirit  of  Divination,  or,  as  it  is  called 
in  the  Old  Tefament,  a  familiar  Spirit ;  in  the 
manner  the  Dclphick  Pricftefs  ufed  to  be  ** 
i dly,  We  have  not  the  leaft  Intimation  in  the 
Text  of  any  fuch  Cheat's  being  di [covered,  and 
therefore  this  could  not  be  the  occafion  of  what 
St.  Paul  faid,  &c.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the 
Devils  in  the  Go/pel  were  forced  to  confels 
Christ,  fo  this  Pythone/s  bore  witnefs  to  His 
Difciples.  Had  fhe  been  only  a  Cheat,  how  fhall 
we  account  for  this  Proceeding,  which  could 
have  no  other  tendency,  than  to  divert  the  At- 
tention of  the  People  from  her  ?  ^dly,  It  was 
fo  the  Spirit  himfelf,  that  Luke  defcribes  St. 
Paul,  as  turning  and  faying,  /  command  thee, 
5cc.     And  I  know  not  what  Warrant  the  En- 

■  See  Hammond  and  Whithy,  in  locum.  "  Python  was  a 
"  Name  of  the  City  Deiphos,  where  Oracies  were  delivered  by 
**  the  DfviJ.V  Hente  rn'ipcc  nv$u\<>-.  •«  Hrjjcbius,  Suidas,  and 
"PLayoiii-.us  a^iee  in  this,  that  ryfbm  1$  hxpiivtot'p£cBf\(Xat" 

quirer 


(  69  ) 

quirer  had  to  change  the  Perfon,  and  to  direcl: 
thefe  Words  of  the  Apoftle  to  her.  ^.thly,  The 
Charge  itfelf,  /  command  thee  in  the  Name  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  come  out  of  her,  and  the  E- 
vent,  he  came  out  the  fame  Hour,  is  fo  exactly 
the  Language  of  the  Go/pels,  when  Devi  Is  are 
faid  to  be  caft  out,  that  I  think,  we  can't,  with- 
out Violence,  underitand  them  of  any  Thing 
elfe.  The  only  difference  is  the  addition  of 
thofe  Words,  cv  too  oyo^i  'i^<r^  KpiTXi  which  is 
conformable  to  His  Direction  and  Promife, 
Markxwi.  ij.  Laflly,  there  is  then  no  Reafon 
to  queftion  but  fhe  was  properly  a  Demoniack, 
i.  e.  one  poffeffed  with  an  evil  Spirit,  as  thofe 
were,  that  are  mentioned  in  the  Gofpels.  In- 
deed, in  what  manner  the  Devil  affliBed  her 
we  are  not  particularly  told.  But  that  in  gene^ 
ral  fhe  was  thus  affiicled,  St.  Paul's  Concern 
feems  to  imply;  $ux,7rovviGeis  Si  o  Uct^hoq,  jc,  t,  A. 
This  Word  denotes  Grief,  which  might  arife 
either  from  Pity  or  Indignation,  the  for- 
mer relating  to  the  Woman,  this  laft  to  the  evil 
Spirit.  In  this  Senfe,  St.  Luke  ufed  this  Word 
before,  A5ls  iv.  2.  $ia,7rov%[jL£voi  $ia  to  $3cL<rx.etv 

civTcvg  tgv  Actcv. We  fee  then  here  a  Woman 

pofleffed  with  an  evil  Spirit.  This  was  cafl  out 
by  the  Apoftle,  in  the  fame  manner,  as  others 
are  faid  to  have  been.  Can  this  be  underftood 
to  mean  either  Madnefs,  or  the  Epilep/y  ?  Nei- 
ther is  pretended.  Can  it  be  explained  by  a 
Power  toj  do  Tricks,  and  to  deceive,  without 
fuppofing  fome  real  P  off eJJio?i?  It  does  not  ap- 
pear, 


(  7°  ) 

pear,  that  the  Word  was  ever  ufed  in  any 
fuch  Senfe.  Befides,  this  Account  entirely  de- 
ftruys  the  Miracle,  and  can't  therefore  be  ad- 
mitted. 

Much  this  fame  we  find  in  the  Enquiry,  p. 
54.  of  the  Women,  who  had  the  Spirit  of  In- 
firmity, and  who  is  faid  by  oar  Saviour  to 
have  been  bound  by  Satan.  u  She  was  never  re- 
<c  puted  a  Demoniacky  but  only  to  be  fo  bent  in 
"  her  Body,  as  not  to  be  able  to  lift  herfelf  up." 
This  indeed  was  her  Diforder :  But  if  it  pro- 
ceed from  an  Evil  Spirit,  fhe  was  a  Demoniack : 
And  it  fiirprizes-  me  to  hear  this  Gentleman 
fay,  "  me  was  never  reputed "  fuch.  What 
the  Jews  accounted  her  cafe,  we  can't  fay. 
But  the  prefent  Bifhop  of  Lichfield  has  (hewn 
it  to  he  the  Opinion  of  St.  Augifiine,  of  Ader 
and  Bartholin?  the  Phyficians,  and  of  Grotius, 
that  an  evil  Spirit  was  the  i\uthor  of  this  Dif- 
eafe  *;  He  alfo  tells  us,  that  Thcothaues  Cera- 
ttiws,  a  Greek  Homilijt  in  the  1  ith  Century, 
corrects  the  Opinion  of  common  Naturalifts, 
and  favs,  that  St.  Luke,  as  skilled  in  Phy- 
jick,  did  not  impute  this  Infirmity  to  mere 
natural  Caufes,  but  to  the  Influence  of  an 
evil  Spirit  in  concurrence  with  them  §."  To 
theie  we  may  add  Dr.  Hammond,  who  para- 
phrafes  a  Spirit  of  hifinmty,  Luke  x'm.  11. 
"  A  fore  Difeafe,  inflicted  on  her  by  the  Devil" 
And  Whitby  on  V.  16. "  A  Spirit  of  Infir- 

*  Vindicat.  of  Miracles,  V.I.  p.  321. — 326. 
S  Ibid.  p.  338. 

mty 


cc 
C( 
(C 
(C 


( 71 ) 

mity  is  nothing  but  an  infirm  Difpofition  or 
Habit,  in  the  Jewiih  Phrafeology ;  and  the 
Chriftian  Writers  are  full  of  the  fame  man- 
ner of  Expreffions,  &c."  My  Lord  cf  Lich- 
field is  fo  ftrong  to  my  Purpofe,  that  I  will 
give  the  Anfwer  in  his  own  Words.  "  The 
Words,  a  Spirit  of  Infirmity,  might  poffibly 
have  been  understood,  by  an  Hebraifm,  of 
the  very  Infirmity  itfelf,  if  our  Lord  had 
not  afterwards  informed  us,  that  Satan  had 
bound,  or  contracted  the  Nerves  or  Sinews 
of  this  Woman  ;  and  had  not  thereby 
fhewn,  that  by  thefe  Words,  a  Spirit  of 
Infirmity,  was  meant  an  Infirmity,  or  fuch 
a  Weaknefs  of  Body,  as  bowd  it  together, 
that  was  inflicted  by  an  evil  Spirit  -f*."  Since 
therefore  this  Expreffion,  whom  Satan  hath 
bound,  muft  determine  the  Meaning  of  the 
other,  let  us  fee  what  the  Enquirer  fays  to  it. 
<c  —That Word  would  have  been  ufed,  whatever 

was  the  true  Caufe  of  this  Indifpofition • 

Satan  is  nothing  elfe  but  Adversary — Thus 
our  Saviour  fays  to  Peter,  get  thee  behind  7ne 

tC  Satan And  fo  to  be  bound  of  Satan,  when 

tC  applied  to  an  Infirmity,  means  no  more  than 
cC  that,  which  was  an  Adverfarv  to  Health,  be 
<c  it  what  it  would."    P.  55.  So  that  by  Satan 

f  Ibid.  p.  317.  Exactly  in  the  fame  manner  fays  Grotius,  pofTet 
quidem  ttviv^x  Hebraeorum  more  pro  ipfo  morbo  accipi,  fecun- 
dum  ea  quae  alibi  diximus  :  Sed  cum  infra  aperce  dicatur  a  Satanai 
immuffim  hoc  malum,  praeftat  ita  intelligi,  quomodo  nnZpu.  a'x«Ao» 
dixit  Marcus  ix.  17,  Damonium  quod  Ioquendi  facultatem  impedi- 
ret.     In  loc. 


we 


(    72    ) 

we  are  to  underftand  any  Difiemper,  or  any 
Accident  that  may  cauie  it.  Bat  what  one  In- 
fiance  have  we  of  either  of  thefe  being  called 
by  this  Name  ?  Satan  in  general  fignifies  an 
Adverfary,  and  the  yews  applied  it  to  any  Ene- 
my. This  is  no  Reafon,  that  it  mull  be  ap- 
plied in  fo  lax  a  Senfe  in  the  Place  before  us.  It 
is  certain,  that  the  moft  frequent  Signification 
of  this  Word  in  Scripture  is,  the  Devil ;  and 
in  the  few  Places  %  where  it  means  only  an 
Adverfary,  it  is  ft  ill  applied  to  Perjbns,  and 
never  once  to  Diftempers,  Accidents,  &c.  So 
that  the  Criticifm  I  am  confidering  appears  ar-  0 
bitrary,  and  without  Foundation.  And  "if, 
in  Cafes  of  fuch  Infirmity ',  "  The  yews  would 
"  fay  that  Satan  bound/1  p.  56.  'Tis  manifeft  - 
from  the  Quotation  out  of  Lightfoot,  that  they 
only  meant  to  attribute  it  to  evil  Spirits.  And, 
that  this  their  Notion  was  univerfally  wrong  has 
not  hitherto  been  proved.  And  at  this  Diftance 
of  Time  it  muft  be  hard  to  prove  it. 

But  it  is  farther  objected,  that  "  the  Woman 
<c  here  feems  to  be  a  devout,  religious,  good  Wo- 
^  man :  Siie  was  in  the  Synagogue  before  her 
c<  Cure,  and  as  ibon  as  fhe  was  cured,  (he  glo- 
"  rifled  God.  Our  Saviour  bears  this  Teftimo- 
"  ny  to  her,  thaty/^  was  a  Daughter  of  Abra- 


*  Our  Lord's  rebuke  to  Peter  is  owned  to  be  one  Inftance  of 
this  Figure.  But  I  fee  no  Reafon,  why  i  Cbron.  xxi.  I.  Satan, 
ivbo  flood  up  again/}  Jfrael,  and  provoked  David  to  number  Ifraelt 
fhould  be  only  "  fomebody  that  was  an  Enemy  of  the  lfraelites  in 
the  Event,  "  fhould  not  be  understood  of  the  Devil.  The  LXX 
iranflates  it  hdQoXcc, 

4  ham*, 


(  73  ) 

c<  ham ;  by  which  he  meant  to  commend  her 
<c  for  her  Faith,  and  good Difpojition  of "Mind." 
I  have  no  defire  to  detract  from  this  Woman's 
Character.  But,  in  juftice  to  my  Subjedt,  I 
can't  but  obferve,  that  Grotius  gives  a  quite 
different  Reafon  for  thefe  laft  Words  of  our  Sa- 
viour, cc  becaufe  the  Name  of  a  Son  ovDaugh- 
"  ter  of 'Abraham  was  among  them  in  the  high- 
"  eft  Efteem."  He  refers  to  fome  Places  for 
the  Truth  of  this,  and  then  adds,  "  thislnter- 
"  pretation  is  plainer  and  truer  than  their's, 
<c  who  make  them  relate  to  the  Faith  of  the 
cc  Woman  *,"     But  be  it  allowed  that  fhe  was 

as  goody  as  this  Gentleman  will  have  her, • 

What  follows  ? That  fhe  was  not  bound  by 

Satan,  literally  fpeaking  ?  What  Grounds  have 
we  to  draw  this  Confequence  ?  To  be  delivered 
to  Satan  was,  I  own,  fometimes  a  Punijhment. 
But  who  can  fay,  that  God  never  permitted  him 
then  to  poffefs  and  afflicl  the  Bodies  of  good  Per- 
fons  ?  Job  was  one  Inftance  of  this ;  and  the 
Woman,  whofe  Cafe  we  are  upon,  for  ought 
I  know,  might  be  another.  The  Gentleman 
afks,  cc  Why  then  fhould  we  imagine  the  De- 
vil, or  the  "Prince  of  Devils  -f,  to  have  been 
in  her  fo  many  Years?"     I  aniwer,  we  a- 


cc 


*  Non  contentus  hominem  pecudi  opponere,  quod  fatis  fuerat, 
adjicit  filiam  Abrahami,  quod  nomen  apud  illos  in   maximo  erat 

pretio Haec  interpretatio  fimplicior  &  re&ior  quam  eorum, 

cpxijidem  Fasminae  fpeclatam  volunt.  in  loc. 

f  I  know  not  the  Reafon  of  this  Explication.  Satan  being 
often  in  Scripture  ufed,  as  a  common  Name  for  the  Powers  of 
Darknefs. 

K  fcribe 


(  74) 

fcribe  her  Diftemper  to  Satan,  becaufe  our 
Blejjed  Saviour  Himfelf  has  done  fo  before  us. 
If  the  Reafon  be  afked  for  this,  /  cant  tell, 
God  knoweth :  But  one  Thing  I  am  fure  of, 
that,  as  He  permitted  it,  this  was  not  without 
the  higheft  and  the  beft  of  Reafons. — "  Might 
"  we  not  have  Grounds  to  think,  that  [the 
"  Devil]  would  have  perverted  her  Mind,  and 
"  not  her  Body"  &c.  No  doubt,  he  would 
have  done  it,  if  he  could.  But,  fuppofing  her 
a  good  Woman,  me  might  eafily  have  Power  to 
prevent  this,  tho'  me  could  not  the  other.  God 
might  fee  fit  to  permit  the  Devil  to  torment  her 
Body,  and  yet  enable  her  to  preferve  her  Mind 
from  all  his  Affaults.  In  this  Cafe,  He  is  ever 
ready  to  affift  His  faithful  Servants.  And  can 
we  then  conclude,  becaufe  Satan  could  not  ac- 
complifh  all  his  malicious  Defigns  upon  her, 
that  he  did  not  gratify  his  natural  Love  of  Mif- 
chief  at  all  ?  "  This  Cafe  then  was "  more  than 
"  mere  Infirmity >"  And  thus,  we  have  "  In- 
<c  fiances  of  Perfons ,:  really  "  Demoniacks,  " 
where  there  is  no  apparent  Epilepfy  or  Mad- 
?iefs. 

The  next  Texts  will  not  keep  us  long,  A£ls 
viii.  7.  Unclean  Spirits,  crying  with  a  loud  voice, 
came  oat  of  many  that  were  pojj'efjed  with  them, 
i.  e.  fays  this  Gentleman,  p.  56.  "  he  cured 
"  Men  that  were  raving!'  If  he  will  under- 
stand it  fo,  there  is  no  help  for  it.  Certain  it  is, 
there  is  noNeceffity  for  this  Interpretation:  Nor 
can  the  Words,  without  fome  Force,  be  capable 

of 


<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


(75  ) 

of  it.  —  But  to  go  on,  —On  Matth.  ix.  32, 
and  33 ;  and  xii.  22,  which  recite  the  Cure  of 
a  Demoniack  dumb,  and  of  another  blind  and 
dumb,  we  have  this  Remark.  cc  The  Poffeflion 
being  the  fame  as  being  mad,  the  Circum- 
ftances  which  attended  it,  mew  how  the 
Man  was  affedled  ;  e.  g.  in  the  Cafe  juft  men- 
tioned, the  Madman  was  a  blind  Man,  and 
dumb,  either  thro'  natural  Infirmity,  or  elfe 
fallen  through  his  Diftemper."  The  Princi- 
ple he  proceeds  upon  has  been  {hewn  to  be 
groundlefs :  Neither  are  thefe  Circumftances  to 
be  coniidered  as  belonging  to  the  Man,  other- 
wife  than  as  they  were  occafioned  in  him  by  the 
Devil.  They  were  part  of  the  Evils,  by  which 
he  afflicted  him.  St.  Luke  xi.  14.  appears  to 
make  this  the  whole  of  one  PofJeJJion ;  Ka).  fy 
g;t£otAA^v  ociijLtcvtcv,  x*  avto  rjv  x&jQgv.  tyivQo  c5g  t% 
icufjLovla  ijrtX$rQv]ogy  iAciArjtTiv  c  xct)@og.  We  need 
not  indeed,  with  Origen,  attribute  this  Dumb- 
nefs  to  the  evil  Spirit,  perfonally  :  But  furely  the 
lead:  we  can  understand  is,  that  he  was  the 
Author  and  Caufeofit,  in  thePerfonfo  affect- 
ed. And  the  fame  is  Sufficiently  clear,  by  im- 
plication, in  the  Paffages  before  us.  The  re- 
covering Sight  and  Speech,  are  reprefented  as 
the  immediate  and  dired  Confequences  of  ca- 
lling out  the  Devib,  which  fairly  and  ftrongly 
implies,  that  the  Lofs  of  both  was  owing  to 
him.  As  therefore  it  would  be  abfurd  to  talk 
of  blind  or  dumb  Madnefs,  and  contrary  to  Ex- 
perience to  fay,  that  this  makes  Men  blind  or 

K  2  dumb-, 


(  76  ) 

dumb  \  we  have  here  a  good  Argument,  that 
by  the  Devil,  in  the  Places  under  Confiderati-^ 
on,  can't  be  meant  mere  Madnefs.  It  muft  im- 
port fome  Being  to  which  thofe  Diforders  may 
be  affigned  *.  As  to  the  latter  Words,  "  or 
"  elfe  fullen  thro*  his  Diftemper,"  my  Excep-r 
tion  to  them  is,  that  this  Explication  tends,  in 
fome  meafure,  to  fet  afide  the  Miracle  ;  which 
the  Gentleman,  as  well  as  my  felf,  is  concern- 
ed to  fupport;  fince  Sullennefs,  of  what  kind 
foever,  may  well  be  conceived  to  be  cured  with- 
out any  Miracle.  And,  if  this  be  allowed,  a- 
nother  may  pretend,  as  reafonably,  that  the 
Blindnefs  was  Objlinacy,  and  the  Madnefs  coun- 
terfeited, and  thus  the  whole  Miracle  will  be 
deitroyedat  once. 

"  And  if  at  any  Time  a  determinate  Num- 
ber of  Devils  are  faid  to  have  poffefled  any 
Perfon,  e.g.  Mary  Magdalene,  out  of  whom 
went  feven  Devils,    Luke  viii.  2.  Mark  xvi, 

9. The  Meaning  is,  that  fhe  had  affirmed 

in  her  Melancholy,  that  fhe  had  fo  many  De- 
vils in  her,  juft  as  the  Madman  faid,  that  he 
had  a  Legion  of  Devils  in  him."  P.  57. 
This  is  mere  Conjecture,  and,  I  fear,  an  unfor- 
tunate one.  For  we  faw  before,  that  it  was  not 
the  Madman  only,  who  faid  this.  St.  Luke 
confirmed  it,  and  gave  a  Reafon  of  his  own  for 
fo  extraordinaiy  a  Title.  And,  with  regard  to 
Mary  Magdalene,  we  are  no  where  told^  that 

*  Vid.  Grotius,  Hammond,  Whitby, 

flie 


CC 

cc 
cc 
*c 
cc 
cc 
<c 
cc 


(  11  ) 

/he  ever  laboured  under  any  Melancholy,  or  that 
flie  ever  affirmed  any  fuch  Thing,  as  tha&Jeven 
Devils  were  in  her.  It  is  plain  from  the  Ac- 
counts of  both  the  Evangelijls,  that  this  Re- 
mark, out  of  'whom ,  He  had  cajl}  or  went,  fe- 
ven*  Devils,  was  made  by  them,  in  their  own 
Names  ->  probably,  to  diftinguim  her  from  the 
other  Women  of  this  Name,  mentioned  in  the 
Gofpel.  Whatever  Difficulty  may  be  then  in 
this  Place,  we  can't  be  thus  helped  out.  But 
really  there  can  be  no  more,  than  in  the  other 
Account  of  the  Legion.  And,  as  in  this,  Pof- 
fejfion  is  pointed  out  as  plainly,  as  Words  can 
defcribe  it,  I  fee  noReafon  to  look  out  for  any 
figurative  Conftruclion  of  that  relating  to  Mary 
Magdalene :  Efpecially,  fince  whatever  Diffi- 
culty be  in  either  Cafe,  it  may  be  attributed  to 
our  Ignorance  of  the  Power  of  wicked  Spirits^ 
and  of  their  manner  of  afting. 

Of  the  vagabond  Jews  Exorcifts,  and  what  is 
related,  Acts  xix.  13,  &c.  to  have  happened 
to  them,  this  Gentleman  gives  this  Conftrufti- 
on,p.  57.  "  The  mad  Man  fell  upon  them,  and 
cc  tore  their  Clothes  off  their  Backs,  and 
"  wounded  them."  But  furely,  that  Anfwer, 
Jesus  I  know,  and  Paul  I  know  -,  but  who  are 
ye?  is  not  the  Anfwer  of  a  Madman,  but  is  per- 
fectly confident  and  rational.  And  I  muft  own  it 
to  be  a  Difficulty  that  flicks  with  me,  that  almoft 
every  one  of  this  fort  of  Madmen,  mentioned 

*    7,  c.  In  the  Jcv;i/b  Phrafeology,  a  great  many, 

in 


(  7«  ) 

in  Scripture,  fhould,  as  it  were,  combine,  in 
giving  Honour  to  our  Bleffed  Lord,  and  in 
bearing  Witnefs  to  His  Power  over  them.  This 
too  often  happens,  to  be  accounted  mere 
Chance,  and  it  is  certain,  nothing  could  be 
more  contrary  to  the  Notion  of  Madnefs.  Be- 
fides,  this  Speech  is  moft  clearly  put  into  the 
Mouth  of  the  evil  Spirit ;  as  diftinguifhed  from 
the  Perfon  po fie  [led  with  it.     \\7tokpi3-\v  $1  to 

wvtvpta,  to  TTovqpoVy  «?re, —  ^  iCpaAAcpctvog  iw  cvj- 

rxg  o  civ3-pu7ros>  \v  a  p  tv  7rvivp&  tv  irovtjpov, 
x,  r,   A. 

The  Enquirer,  p.  58.  thinks  '  it  cc  worth 
<£  while  to  confider  a  little  the  Practices  of  thefe 
"  vagabond  Jews."  As  I  have  before  fpoken 
what  I  think  of  them,  I  propofe  to  be  very  fhort 
on  this  Point.  It  may  be  however  proper  to 
repeat  my  Opinion,  that  they  were  different 
from  thofe  Exorcifis  who  ufed  the  Name  of 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Ifaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob,  This  does  not  appear 
to  be  any  Trick.  And  this  Gentleman  very 
rightly  tranflates  Jiiflin  Martyr  fo,  as  to  make 
their  Succefs  probable,  \t<ra$  v7rolctyy,cQcti,  pro- 
bably he  will  obey,]  which  is  more  than  we 
have  Reafon  to  believe  of  the  others,  the  Strol- 
lers. To  thefe  only  the  laft  Words  r^yj  ph  rot 
k,  t,  a.  feem  to  relate.  Thefe  two  forts  of  Ex- 
orcijls  Grotius  has  clearly  diflinguifhed;  and  ob- 
ferves,  that  whereas  the  Herbs,  and  Scents, 
and  Chains,  ufed  on  this  Occafion,  by  the  one, 
were  borrowed  from  the  Gentiles,  the  invoking 

the 


(  79  ) 

the  Name  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  &c.  was 
originally  a  Jewijh  Cuftom  5  to  which  God 
might  often  vouchfafe  to  grant  Succefs  *,  even 
when  ufed  by  thofe  who  knew  him  not.  How;- 
ever,  thefe  Invocations  were,  'tis  plain,  ufed, 
and  that  to  drive  away  Devils  -,  and  if  we  may 
credit  not  only  Origen,  but  fnjiin,  T'beophilus, 
and  Irenceus,  they  were  often  effectual,  The 
Authority  of  all  thefe  Writers  with  regard  to 
Faffs,  fhould,  methinks,  be  of  fome  Weight ; 
and  I  much  queftion,  whether  our  Surprize  or 
Conjectures,  at  this  Time  of  Day,  be  fufficient 
to  fet  their  Account  afide.  We  have  feen,  that 
no  lefs  Men  than  Grotius,  and  Dr.  Hammond 
have  offered  a  Reafon  for  the  Succefs,  that  fo 
much  caufes  this  Gentleman's  Wonder,  P.  60. 
$nd  he  may  fee,  they  attribute  nothing  to  mere 
Sounds,  and  Charms  of  Words,  but  all  to  God, 
thus  bearing  Teftimony  to  His  true  Name, 
Thefe  Exorcijms  therefore  fhould  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  Arts  of  the  Vagabonds,  for 
whom  I  do  not  contend.     Nor  can  I  difcern 


*  Grot,  in  Mattb.  xii.  27.  01  vie)  I  put]  Non  Apoftoli  — 
fed  populares  Pharifeorum  atq;  Difcipuli :  neq;  inter  eos  illi  qui 
herbis,  fuffitibus,  &  vinculis  adverfus  Daemonas  utebantur  (quod 
nonerat  inititutum  origine  Judaicum  atq;  a  Solomone  deduclum, 
quod  vult   Jofephus,  fed  a  Gentibus  defumptum,    ut  recle  docet 

Tryphonem  Juilinus)  fed  ij  qui  daemonas  ejiciebant invocan- 

tes  Deum  Abrahami,  &c. Ejufmodi  ergo  exorcifmi  eventum 

fsepe  fuum  habuerunt ;  non  quod  vis  ulla  in  fyllabarum  pronun- 
ciation effet  fita,  fed  quod  verus  Deus  illis  potiffimum  nomini- 
bus  nofci  appellariq;  vellet,  atq;  ideo  vim  fuam  turn  demum  ex- 
fereret,  cum  apertifTima  locutione  conftaret  ipfum,  non  aliquem 
Gentilium  Deorum,  effe  invocatum.  See  this  fame  Reafon  in 
Hammond  ad  loc. 

1  how 


(8o  ) 

how  the  believing,  or  cc  endeavouring  to  ac~ 
11  count  for  "  thofe,  can  deferve  fo  fevere  a  Re- 
flection, as  we  find  in  the  Page  before  us ;  how 
this  "  is  to  promote  the  Cheat,  and  to  encou- 
"  rage  the  World  to  confult  Inchanters,  and 
"  Witches,  and  Wizards,  and  Necromancers ;" 
unlefs  it  could  be  affirmed,  that  thefe  act  in  the 
Name  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  a?td  the  God  of 
Ifaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob ;  or  that  calling  up- 
on this  is  any  magical  Operation. 

My  prefent  Defign  does  not  require  me  to 
enter  upon  a  Defence  of  the  Ephefan  Letters, 
which  the  Author  of  the  Enquiry  ^.  61,  with 
Reafon  enough  calls  "ridiculous  Words,  fenfelefs 
"  Sounds,  fit  to  cheat  the  Ignorant  with."  We 
may  however  very  fitly  obferve,  that  Plutarch,  & 
fober  and  good  Writer,  alludes  to  the  Cuftom 
of  commanding  Demoniacks  to  read  them  over  *, 
without  the  leaft  Mark  of  Diflike  or  Sufpicion. 
All  that  I  would  collect  from  this,  is,  that  there 
zxefxLck  pofieffed  Perfons  mentioned  by  an  Hea- 
then Writer,  as  Cafes  that  were  common,  and 
at  which  he  exprerTes  no  manner  of  Surprize. 
Nor  can  we  prove,  that  they  were  not  truly, 
fuch  as  he  reprefems  them.  The  Charms  here 
ufed,  however  fenfelefs,  rather  imply  they 
were.  Since,  as  has  been  obferved,  thefe  ori- 
ginally and  properly  have  a  relpecl,  not  to  Di- 
ftempers,  but  PojJeJJions. 

*  "fi<rrfp  yap  cl  ftocyoi  t«?  cot.njt>ovi£op&&z>  xtbtvisci  ret  tQia-iet, 
y^x fA[Acc]u  Tap?  aV|«s  xetlcthsyitt  xj  ovofjjs^JHf  —  Plut.  Sympof. 
L.  7.  qu&f.  5.  ad  fin. 

I  have 


cc 


(81   ) 

I  have  now  gone  thro'  what  this  Gentle- 
man  has  offered,  by  way  of  Objection  to  the 
literal  Meaning  of  the  Demoniacksy  and  to  efta- 
blifh  the  Suppofition  of  their  being  either  Epi- 
lepticks,  or  Madmen :  I  am  now  to  propofe  fuch 
Objections  as  occur  againft  this  Scheme,  and  to 
eonfider  what  is  faid,  in  the  Enquiry,  by  way 
of  reply  to  them. 

Firfty  the  Scripture  and  ecclefiaftical  Wri- 
ters, make  a  conftant  and  a  plain  Diftincti- 
on  between  thefe  two  Things,  the  curing  of 
DifeaJeSy  and  the  cajling  out  Devils"  Enq. 
p.  62.  And  does  this  Gentleman  deny  this  ? 
And  is  it  not,  if  it  be  true,  a  ftrong  Proof  that 
thefe  two  ought  not  to  be  confounded  ?  If  we 
fuppofe  them  to  have  been  really  diftindt,  how 
could  the  Scripture  more  fully  reprefent  them  fo, 
than  by  this  Method  ?  Were  this  only  obferva- 
ble  in  one  Inftance  or  two,  there  might  per- 
haps have  been  room  for  fome  Doubt:  But  the; 
Stile  of  the  Holy  Writings  is  in  this  cafe  fo  uni- 
form, as  not  reafonably  to  allow  of  any.  ■  ■  ■■- 
Let  us  come  to  Particulars.  Matth.  iv.  24.  'They 
brought  unto  Him  all  fick  People \  that  were  ta- 
ken with  divers  Difea fes  and  Torments,  and 
thofe  which  were  pojfejfed  with  Devils,  and  thofe 
which  were  Limatick,  and  thefe  that  had  the 
Pal/yy  &c.  I  mull  firft  take  notice,  that  the 
Enquirer ,  in  citing  this  Text,  has  omitted  the 
Words,tf  W 'Torments;  whether  thro'  Carelefsnefs, 
or  by  Defign,  I  don't  know.  We  have  no 
Reafon  to  fufpect  their  being  genuine.     They    H-tri 

L  are 


(  82  ) 

are  only  found  wanting  in  two  Copies,  and  thefe 
of  no  Character  for  Correctnefs.  For,  as  to 
Theophylafili  Dr.  Mill  tells  us,  he  omitted  them 
induftrioufly,  and  out  of  Regard  to  his  particu- 
lar Opinion  *.  In  which  he  was  undoubtedly 
wrong.  Had  his  Notion  been  never  fo  true, 
and  he  never  fo  ftrongly  afllired  of  it,  he  nei- 
ther could  have  Authority,  nor  be  at  Liberty, 
to  alter  the  Sacred  Text. 

Enq.  p.  63.  "  What  is  ufually  called  Poffefji- 
on  of  Devils,  is  no  more  to  be  diftinguiihed 
from  Difeafe  or  Sicknefs,  than  the  Palfy  is, 
which  is  put  in  the  fame  manner  as  Lunacy 
is,  and  contradiftinguifhed  from  Difeafes. 
In  Truth,  the  proper  rendring  is,  he  cured 
all  that  were  taken  with  diverfe  Difeafes,  e- 
ven  Demoniacks,  Lunaticks,  and  Paraly- 
ticks."  Let  the  excluded  Words  be  here  in- 
ferted,  and  we  may  venture  to  admit  this  ren- 
dring. Thefe  particular  Cafes  muft  then  be 
thought  the  chief  In  fiances  of  the  divers  Dif- 
eafes and  T'onnents.  And  therefore  the  Demo- 
niacks may  be  defigned  to  be  included  under 
thofe  who  were  tormented,  and  may  ftill  be  here 
diftinguiihed  from  the  divers  Difeafes.  How- 
ever, which  is  more  to  our  Purpofe  to  obferve, 
they  are  and  mujl  be  diftinguiihed  from  thofe 
which  were  Lunatick  -f*,    and  thofe  that  had  the 

*  Omifit  Theophyl.  de  induftria,  quod  cttovtoifyfAsrtJs  puta- 
rit  oc^ua.u  »V«,  ut  apparet  ex  commentario.     Not.  ad  loc. 

■f  i.  e.  as  Dr.  Hammond  has  here  paraphrafed  it,  "  affected 
"  with  any  Difeafe,  on  which  the  Changes  of  the  Moon  had  in- 
'■  fiaence,  whether  Madnefs,  or  Falling-Sicknefs". 

3  Palfy. 


cc 
cc 
cc 


PaJjy.  To  which  we  find  two  Anfwers,  p. 
64,  65.  Neither  of  which  I  conceive  fufficient. 
TheophylaB  did  not  read  in  his  Copy  thofe 
Words,  and  thofe  which  were  poffejjed  with 
Devi/s."  Mill  fays,  that  he  omitted  them, 
as  in  his  Opinion  fuperfluous  *.  Here  again, 
he    was  undoubtedly  wrong.      "  It  is  plain, 

"  they  are  wanting  in  fome  MSS." Only  in 

two — "  In   fome   Copies,    which    have    the 

"  Words And  thofe,    which   were  poffeffed 

"  with  Devils,  the  following  ones — And  thofe 

"  which  were  lunatick are  omitted."     I  find 

in  Dr.  Mill  but  one,  and  this  of  no  Note—"  But 
"  fay  that  the  common  Reading  is  the  true  one, 
""  it  amounts  to  no  more  than  this,  that  our 
"  Saviour  cured  all  forts  of  Madnefs,  whenfo- 
"  ever  it  arofe,  whether  it  were  from  Melan- 
"  choly,  or  from  any  other  Caufe."  If  De- 
vils, or  their  Pofjefjion,  be  allowed  to  be  a 
Caufe,  this  Interpretation  perhaps  might  be  ad- 
mitted. Other  wife  it  appears  to  be  making 
thofe  Cafes  one  and  the  fame,  which  the  Evan- 
gelifts  have  clearly  and  exprefly  diftinguifhed  : 
And  I  fee  no  Reafon,  why  the  Par  ah  ticks 
might  not  as  well  be  taken  in  too  ;  fince  it  has 
here  no  other  Mark  of  Difference,  than  the 
Demoniacks. 

The  Gentleman  cites  three  other  Texts,  and 
obferves  of  them  all  " — The  Senfe  is  very  clear : 

*  Miffo  tfy&ttfAmfyiA/iriJS,  ceu  fuperfluo,  quod  lunaticos  haberet 
Theophyl.  pro  Daemon iacis,  ut'appaiet  ex  Com.  Mi  Hit  Prole- 
gmn-.  1059. 

L  2  "He 


ft 


C  84] 

He  gave  the  Difciples  Power  over  unclean 
Spirits,  and  not  only  that  Power,  but  likewife 
to  heal  all  other  Diftempers.  As  to  Himfelf, 
"  our  Saviour  cured  the  fick,  and  likewife  all 
"  forts  of  Lunacy."  Let  us  now  compare  this 
Account  with  the  Texts  themfelves.  The  firft 
is  Mat.  x.  1 .  He  gave  them  Fewer  againjl  un- 
clean Spirits  to  caft  them  out,  and  to  heal  all 
manner  of  Sicknefs  and  Difeafes  Here  one 
would  think  unclean  Spirits  can't  be  interpreted 
of  any  Difeafe,  when  it  is  fo  exprefly  oppofed 
to  all  manner  of  them.  But,  as  in  citing  the 
Jail:  Text,  the  Enquirer  left  out  two  Words  of 
Importance^  fo  in  his  Expofition  of  this,  he 
has  added  one,  which  the  Text  itfelf  will  not 
warrant.  All  manner  of  Sicknefs,  he  explains, 
all  other  Diftempers.  This  Word  other  is 
entirely  his  own.  This  Senfe  therefore  which 
depends  upon  it,  may  be  faid  to  be  His,  but  is 
not  St.  Matthew's. 

Mark  i.  34.  He  healed  many  that  were  fick  of 
divers  Difeafes,  and  caft  cut  many  Devils. 
And,  Luke  iv.  40,  4 1 .  He  laid  his  Hands  on 
every  one  of  them  [fick  with  divers  Difeafes]  and 
healed  them,  and  Devils  also  came  out  of  many 
crying  out,  and  faying,  &c.  We  have  cited  the 
Gentleman's  Interpretation  of  thefe,  in  which  I 
cannot  agree  with  him  ;  becaufe  it  is  making 
the  Evangelifls  ufe  a  direct  and  abfolute  Tau- 
tology. Madnefs  is  allowed  to  be  a  Difeafe,  p. 
63.  Epilepfy  is  certainly  one  :  If  therefore  thefe 
be  all  that  is  meant  by  Devils,   there  had  been 

no 


(  «5  ) 

no  Occafion,  after  the  mention  of  our  Lord's 
healing  many  that  were  feck  of  divers  Difeafes, 
to  have  added,  and  cajt  out  many  Devils,  What 
Senfe  is  this,  he  cured  many  that  were  Jick  of 
divers  Difeajes,  and  likewife  many  that  were  lick 
of  fome  particular  Difeafes,  fiich  as  Lunacy ',  &c  ? 
Befides,  St.  Luke's  Words  are  yet  more  em- 
phatical.  We  fee  a  different  Way  of  fpeaking 
in  his  Relation  of  the  Cure  of  Diftempers,  and 
of  the  cafting  out  Devils.  Of  the  former  he 
only  lays,  t&epdirwcev  dvrovg  -y  but  thefe  latter 
he  fpeaks  of  perfonally,  as  adive  Beings,  and 
accordingly  puts  Words  into  their  Mouths, 
sfcypXtTo  Si  k,  ScufAovict  <Lttq  7roXXoov  jcpelCpvTa,  >L  Ae- 
yovTuy  xy  r,  A.  Would  a  corredt  Writer  have 
faid  this,  if  thefe  had  been  no  other  than  Dif 
eajes,  and  therefore  included  under  the  former 
Part  of  the  Sentence  *  ? 

A  fecond  Objection  this  Gentleman  fets 
down,  p.  65.  in  the  Words  of  Dr.  Whitby, 
which  he  anfwers  particularly  -,  and  therefore 
it  may  not  be  amifs  to  fet  down  the  whole  of  it, 
that  the  Strength  of  it  may  appear.  "  The 
fc  Difference  between  Demcniacks  and  Luna- 


*  Mr.  dwells  obferves  that  "  the  Greek  z*  ixxoftosraf,  is  fre- 
'*  quently  ufed  of  ejecting  Devils,  but  never  of  Diftempers  that 
'•  are  healed."  Critic.  Exam.  Part  I.  p.  96.  And  J  believe  the 
Enquirer  can't  fhcw,  that  it  is  ufed  of  any  Diforders,  but  thofe 
under  Confideration.  The  fame  may  be  faid,  of  ZUoate,  Mat. 
yiii.  16.  applied  to  Spirits,  in  Oppofition  tb-l&pdfa'ftrtf',  applied 
/call  that  ivere  fick.  So  Ch.  x.  i.  MarklW-  l£»  Thefe  are  alio 
clearly  diftinguifhed,    MarAxvi.  17,   18.  \E«  tu  Ivluuctri pa  A«- 

fAo'mct  ixQahSa-i fat  appa'trTeq  %tv<zq  iii^tr-nri.     'Seealfc,  Luke 

yi,  17,  ig.  ix.  1.  A3s  xix.  u. 

"  ticks 


(  86  ) 

,c  ticks  is  evident  from  the  Circumftances  relat- 
ing to  the  Devils  to  be,  or  that  actually  were, 
caft  out.  E.  g.  Chrift  fuffered  not  the  De- 
vils to  fpeaky  beeaufe  they  knew  htm  to  be  the 
Chrift :,  Mark  \.  34.  Lukeiv.  41.  They  faid, 
Thou  art  the  Chrift \  the  Son  of  God :  They 
fC  expoftulate  with  Chrift,  faying,  what  have 
"  we  to  do  with  thee  ?  Art  thou  come  to  torment 
us  before  the  Time?  And  pray,  that  he  would 
not  torment  them :  They  ask  His  leave  to 
enter  into  the  Swine  \  and  being  entered,  they 
lf  hurry  them  into  the  Sea  ;  and  beg,  that  they 
may  not  be  fent  out  of  the  Country  ;  they 
acknowledge  that  their  Name  was  Legion. 
Now  to  make  all  thefe  Sayings  the  Effects  of 
a  Difeafe,  or  to  conceive,  that  Chrift  fpoke 
thus  to  a  Difeafe^  is  too  great  an  Evidence  of 
one  that  is  himfelf  difeafed." 
Wit  and  Reflections  apart,  let  us  confider, 
what  is  replied  to  the  feveral  Parts  of  this  Ob- 
jection. Andfirft,  when  our  Lord  fuffered  not 
the  Devils  to  Jpeak,  beeaufe  they  knew  Him. 
This  Gentleman  fays,  p.  65,  66.  "  He  checked 
the  Demon iacks  whom  he  cured,  juft  as  He 
likewife  does  His  immediate  Diiciples  and 
Followers,  if  at  any  Time  they  publickly 
and  openly  declared  Him  to  be  the  Chrift.,, 
But  this  Reply  appears  founded  on  a  Miftake, 
viz.  That  beeaufe  this  Speech  may  be  imputed 
to  the  Perfon  poffeffed,  therefore  it  muji  be  fo. 
Whereas,  though  fometimes  there  may  be  a 
NecefTity  for  this,   here  there  is  none.     Devils 

are 


CC 

cc 
<c 
cc 

cc 


CC 

cc 


cc 
cc 

(CC 

cc 

cc 

cc 


(  87  ) 

arc  Beings  capable  of  knowing  Jesus  to  be  the 
Christ,  andalfo  of  ufing  the  Man's  Speech, 
or  fome  Power  of  their  own,  to  utter  what 
they  knew.  And  therefore  as  the  literal  Senfe 
is  no  way  abfurd,  it  ought  to  prevail ;  and  'tis 
unreafonable  to  look  out  for  a  Figure.  Our  Sa- 
viour might  rebuke  the  Devils  for  the  fameRea- 
fons,  which  are  affigned  for  his  reftraining  the 
Men :  As  alfo,  for  one  Reafon  peculiar  to  thofe, 
that  He  would  not  receive  Tejlimony  from  De- 
vils. 

In  Anfwer  to  rebuking  the  Devils,  Luke  iv. 
41.  The  Gentleman,  p.  66.  fets  V.  39.  He 
rebuked  the  Fever,  and  thinks  no  more  can  be 
concluded  from  the  one  Place,  than  the  other. 
And,  indeed,  if  there  had  been  no  other  Cir- 
cumftances  to  help  us,  this  Reply  would  have 
been  very  juft  and  true.  But,  in  the  Place  be- 
fore us,  we  have  fuch.  The  Devils  here  re- 
buked  are  real  Beings:  They  are  rebuked  for 
Speeches  actually  attributed  to  them ;  which 
are  never  attributed  to  Fevers,  and  which  there 
is  no  manner  of  Reafon  to  believe  neceflary  to 
the  Perfons  affiled.  The  Objection  therefore 
remains  in  full  Force. 

To  that  Speech  of  the  Devils,  thou  art  the 
Chrifl  the  Son  of  God,  the  Enquirer  anfwers, 
p.  67.  "  If  the  Man  that  was  poffeffed,  or 
mad,  made  fuch  Declarations  in  Confequence 
of  his  Diftemper,  it  may  I  think,  with  the 
fame  Propriety  be  attributed  to  the  Diftem- 
"  per,  as  when  St.  Paul  fays,  Rom,  vii.  17,   20. 

c:  It 


(88) 

€t  It  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,   but  Sin  thai  dwell- 
<c  eth  in  me!%     Now,  firft,    the  Declarations 
here  made,   were  no  Effedr.  or  Confequence  of 
Diftemper,    and  are  therefore   not  to  be  im- 
puted to  it.     This  Gentleman  owns,  in  the 
preceding  Page,  that  much  the  fame  were  alfo 
made  by  our  Lords  "  immediate  Difciples  and 
"  Followers,"  whofurely  were  not  mad.  zdly, 
I  grant,  that  Difeafs,  as  well  as  Virtues,  and 
Vices,   may  be  confidered,  and  treated  as  Per- 
fons:  But  then  the  Profopopeia  mull:  be  plain 
and  manifeft,   and  can't  be  miftaken.     Thus, 
in  the  Paffage  above,   there  is  no  danger  of  un- 
derftanding  Sin  in  a   Perfonal  Senfe ;  no  one 
has  ever  underftood  it  fo.     We  all  know,  that 
its  Being  is  but  feigned  and  imaginary.  Where- 
as, the  Cafe   of  the  Devils  is  very  different. 
Thefe   are  certainly  real  Perjons,    capable   of 
acting,  and  fpeaking,  what  is  afcribed  to  them. 
And  therefore  here  there  is  not  the  leaft  Occafion 
to  have   recourfe  to  Figure,   when  the   literal 
Senfe  is  fo  very  intelligible  and  proper.    Befides, 
we  find  the  Cure  of  many  other  Diftempers  re- 
lated in  Scripture  ;    but  none  of  them  are  re- 
prefented  as  Jpeaking,  or  crying  out.     Which 
makes  it  highly  probable,    that  had  the  Pofef- 
fions  been  only  common  Difeafes,   we  fhould 
have  heard  nothing  of  this  Way  of  Speaking. 
It  ought  alfo   to  be  remembred,  that  we  ob- 
ferved  before,    how  inconfiftent  andunreafona- 
ble  it  is  to  impute  fuch  Declarations   of  'Truth 
and  liobernef  conftantly  and  perpetually  toMad- 
nej's.  The 


(  89  ) 

The  next  Part  of  the  Obje&ion,  the  Gentle- 
'  man  examines;   p.  68.   is  the  Devil's  Expoftu- 
lation  with  Christ,  faying,  let  us  alone,  what 
have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou  Jesus  of  Nazar- 
eth ?  .Art  thou  co?7ie  to  dejiroy  us  ?   I  know  thee 
who  thou  arty  the  holy  One  of  God.  Luke  iv.  34. 
Mark  i.  24.  I  fhall  not  repeat  what  I  have  al- 
ready  urged  againft  the  Suppofition  of  thefe 
Words  being  applied  to  any  but  the  Devils,  nor 
the  Anfwer  given  to  the  Obfervation,  that  the 
Evangelifts  fpeak  fometimes  of  one,  and  fome- 
times  of  more  Devils ;    on  which  this  Enquirer 
here  again  lays  a  great  Strefs.     And  I  come  di- 
rectly to  his  fecond  Reply,  which  we  have,  p. 
69.  "  That  the  Evangelifts  fometimes  impute 
u  that  to  the  Cauje  of  a  Difeafe  which  is  proper 
cc  and  peculiar  only  to  the  Man  who  is  dis- 
tempered :  They  imputed  that  to  the  Devils \ 
which  the  Man  alone  could  do. — e.  g.  Mark 
iii.  1 1.  Unclean  Spirits  when  they  saw  Him, 
fell  down  before  Him,  &c."   Now  though 
it  was  the  Man  only,  who  vifibly  did  this,  yet 
it  can  hardly  be  called  the  a£t  of  the  Man  alone, 
exclufive  of  the  unclean  Spirits ;  as  it  is  imputed 
to  thefe  in  Terms,  and  as  the  leaft  that  can  be 
"underftood  is,    that  it  was  done,  as  certainly  'tis 
eafy  to  conceive  it  mi^ht  be  done,  through  their 
Influence.     Even  in  this  Text  their  Power  is 
fuppofed.     To  impute  an  Effe5i  to  its  proper 
Caufe  and  Occafion,  is  no  hard  Figure,   though 
another  Injlrument  be  ufed  ;  but  to  affign  it  to 
what  never  was,  nor  can  be,   a  Caufe  of  it,  is, 

.    M  I 


cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 


(  9°  ) 

I  apprehend,  Language  unknown  to  Scripture. 
In  thefe  Cafes  therefore  it  will  not  be  fufficient 
to  fay,  that  thefe  Actions  may  be  imputed  to 
the  Man  alone,  or  that  the  Man  muft  have  im- 
mediately performed  them. 

If  therefore  we  ufe  this  Text  to  explain  the 
Expoflulations  mentioned  above ;  at  leaft  we 
muft  fay,  that  thefe  were  utter'd  under  the  In- 
fluence of  Devils,  and  by  their  Direction. 
But,  in  Truth,  we  can  collect  nothing  from  this 
Place,  to  make  us  reject  the  literal  Senfe  of  the 
others.  If,  in  this,  there  be  Actions  attributed 
to  the  Devils,  which  we  cannot  eafily  under- 
ftand  of  thefe  -,  yet,  in  the  others,  there  is  no 
fuch  Difficulty ;  nay,  without  manifeft  Incon- 
fiftency,  we  cannot  apply  them  to  any  one  elfe. 
The  Speeches  here  are  very  proper  and  natural, 
if  fuppofed  to  proceed  from  the  Devils ;  but 
otherwife  they  cant  well  be  reconciled. 

The  Remark  of  the  Author  of  the  ^uefiions 
and  Anjwers  to  the  Orthodox  has  been  produced 
before.  The  Enquirer  fays,  p.  70,  cc  the  Re- 
"  verfe  of  this  is  as  true,  that  the  Scriptures  at- 
"  tribute  to  Demons  the  acts  of  the  Demoniack" 
We  grant,  that  both  thefe  Obfervations  are  true, 
provided  we  do  not  underftand  the  laft,  exclu- 
iive  of  the  Demons  themfelves.     And  we  find 

them  both  allowed  by  Grotius  * "  Which 

"  fhews  that  in  thefe  Cafes,  we  are  not  to  re- 

*  Bene  ad  hunc  locum  [Mark  v.  4.]  Scriptor  refponfionum  ad 
Orthodox. Ita  contra,  Cap.  iii.  u.  Dsemoni  afcribitur  id  quod 

"  gard 


(9i  ) 

<c  gard  the  Letter,  but  the  real  and  exadt  Mean- 
<c  ing  of  the  Sacred  Writers."  This  no  doubt 
is  chiefly  to  be  regarded  :  But,  in  order  to  find 
this  out,  I  believe  it  a  good  Rule,  not  to  depart 
from  the  Letter,  unlefs  it  be  clogged  with  any 
plain  Abfurdities.  However,  in  this  very  Page, 
this  Author  has  thought  fit  to  leave  his  Infe- 
rence, and  builds  a  great  deal  on  the  very  Let- 
ter ;  I  mean,-  in  accounting  for  all  the  Diffi- 
culties in  Mat.  viii.  29."  Here  he  fays,  "  It 
is  generally  fuppofed,    that  in  this  Story,  it 

"  was  the  Devils  which  cried  out Art  thou 

come  hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time  ? 
But  there  is  no  Neceffity  for  this  Conftruc- 
tion ;  and  it  is  plain,  that  both  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Luke  exprefly  afcribe  this  Declaration  to 
the  Man  himfelf."  And  indeed,  it  feems  to 
have  been  a  Point  quite  indifferent  with  them, 
to  whom  they  immediately  afcribed  it.  For, 
having  fo  plainly  reprefented  the  Man  as  poflef- 
fed  with  many  Devils,  they  might  leave  it  to 
every  Reader  to  colled:,  that  at  leaft  the  Man 
made  this  Declaration  under  the  Influence  of 
thefe  wicked  Spirits.  This  at  leaft  it  feems  necef- 
fary  to  fuppofe.  For  otherwife,  there  is  in  this 
whole  Speech  fo  much  Inconfiftency  and  Inco- 
herence, that  a  general  Suppofition  of  Madnefs 
will  not  account  for  it.  Should  we  grant  he 
was  a  Madman  \  yet  it  appears  from  his  wor- 
Jhipping  Jesus,  and  owning  his  Convi&ion  of 
His  Divine  Nature  and  Miflion,  that  this  was 
a  lucid  and  calm  Interval,    and  therefore  we 

M  2  have 


(< 

CI 


(  92  ) 

have  no  Reafon  to  interpret  the  reft  of  his 
Speech  in  fuch  a  Senfe,  as  Diffraction  only  can 
juftify.  This  Suppolition  then  being  attended 
with  fo  great  a  Difficulty,  and  the  common  one 
being  eafy  and  fuitable  to  the  Nature  of  the 
evil  Spirits,  there  can  be  fure  no  Doubt  which 
to  prefer. 

However,  this  Gentleman  offers,  p.  71.  a 
Criticifm  to  explain  the  Reafon  of  the  Man's 
making  this  requeft.  "  The  Men  who  had 
<c  felt  the  Pain  and  Anguifh  arifing  from  being 
"  fetter  d  and  chairid,  defire  that  Jesus  would 
<c  not  put  them  to  that  Torment  again.,,  But, 
what  room  was  there  for  fuch  a  Sufpicion  ? 
They  had  heard  of  the  Fame  of  Jesus,  which 
His  miraculous  Cures  had  railed  and  fpread. 
They  accordingly  declare  Him  to  be  the  Son  of 
God.  But,  had  they  heard  of  any  one  Inftance 
where  He  had^WPerfons  in  their  Condition, 
and  thus  vexed  or  tormented  them  ?  If  Madnefs 
be  here  pleaded,  I  muft  again  anfwer,  that 
Reajbn  and  Raving  are  not  very  confiftent.  So 
that  if  the  Words  under  Confideration  muft 
be  applied  to  the  Man  afflicted  -,  it  is  moft  pro- 
bable, that  they  were  the  Words  of  a  Man  not 
dreading,  but  defiring  a  Cure.  For  obferve  the 
Context.  He  came  oat  of  the  Tombs,  exceeding 
fierce,  a  Terror  to  all  Paflengers  -,  and  yet,  as 
foon  as  hefatv  Our  Saviour  afar  off]  he  knew, 
and  acknowledged,  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  -y 
he  voluntarily  met  Him,  and  worjhipped  Him. 
How  is  all  this  confiftent  with  the  fuppofed 

Fear 


(93) 

Fear  of  being  chained  again  ?  Had  this  been 
his  Concern,  inftead  of  thus  meeting  Jesus,  he 
furely,  when  afar  off,  would  have  attempted  to 
fly  from  Him,  or  to  terrify  Him,  as  he  had 
done  others.  Thefe  Difficulties  wnifh  on  the 
common  Scheme.  Even  the  Devils  knew  their 
Conqueror,  feared  His  Power,  and  trembled  at 
His  Prefence. 

Another  Difficulty  is,  that  the  Devils  be- 
fought  our  Lord,  that  he  would  not  command* 
them  to  go  out  into  the  Deep,  Luke  viii.  3 1. 
or,  as  St.  Mark  has  it,  that  He  would  not  fend 
them  away  out  of  the  Country,  The  Enquirer's 
Reply  to  this  has  been  in  a  great  Meafure  con- 
sidered already.  He  thinks  it  "  all  the  Effect 
"  of  high  Madnefs;  and  natural  on  thatSup- 
<c  pofition."  P.  73.  And  furely  if  it  is  Mad- 
nefs,  it  is  Madnefs  in  a  much  higher  Degree, 
than  the  Man  appears  at  this  time  to  have  been 
poffefTed  with.  This  Gentleman  does  not  tell 
us,  what  he  underftands  by  the  Deep,  or  the 
great  Abyfs.  But  St.  "John  clearly  explains  this ; 
and  who  fo  fit  to  explain  one  Sacred  Writer,  as 
another  ?  Rev.  xx.  ^3.  We  read  that  an  Angel 
laid  hold  on  the  Dragon,    the  old  Serpent,  which 

is  the  Devil  and  Satan A?id  cajl  him  into 

the  bottomlefs  Pit iiq  rnv  oiSvo-o-cv.    As  'tis  not 

difficult  to  conceive  them  acquainted  with  this 
their  Doom,  we  fee  what  Reafon  they  had  to 
be  apprehenfive  of  it,  and  to  deprecate  it.  But 
what  Authority  have  we  to  induce  us  to  believe 
that  the  Madmen  knew  any  thing  of  this  Place 

1  of 


(  94  ) 

of  Punifhment  prepared  for  the  Devil  and  his 
Angels  ?  And,  if  they  did  not,  how  {hall  we 
account  for  their  fo  directly  alluding  to  it  ?  As 
to  the  Words  in  St.  Mark,  \^oo  Ttjg  x&qcts,  they 
may  indeed  be  parallel  to  thofe  of  St.  Luke, 
and  mean  no  more  than  a  Requeft  to  continue 
longer  on  Earth.  However,  it  muft  not  be 
omitted,  that  both  Grotius  and  Whitby  explain 
the  Words  of  that  particular  Country,  and  gave 
the  following  Reafon  for  the  Devils  defiring  to 
abide  there,  becaufe  of  the  Numbers  of  the 
Apojiates  from  the  Jewijlo  Faith,  over  whom, 
they  were  particularly  fuffered  to  exercife  their 
Power,  as  they  were  afterwards  over  the  Apof- 
tates  from  Chrijlianity. 

"  And  when  this  Mifchief  was  thus  done 
by  the  Madman,  could  any  thing,  after  they 
were  brought  to  a  right  Mind,  be  more  na- 
tural, then  for  them  to  defire,  to  be  taken 
along  with  J 'ejus,  when  He  left  that  Country/* 
Anfwer,  The  Evangel Jls  do  not  make  the  Man 
at  all  concerned  l;i  doing  this  Mifchief ;  much 
lefs,  doing  it  in  the  manner  this  Gentleman 
fuppofes,  by  "  running  among  the  Herd,  and 
<c  driving  them  down  the  Precipice."  For  the 
Action  of  entring  into  the  Swine,  whatever  it 
may  fignify,  is  not  attributed  to  the  Devils, 
till  after  they  were  forced  out  of  the  Man  -,  and 
therefore  can  never  properly,  with  any  Senfe, 
be  imputed  to  him.  Is  it  then  a  more  natural 
Suppofition,  that  his  Defire  of  being  with 
Jesus  was  not  owing  to  any  Fear  he  had  of  the 

People's 


(95  ) 

People's  Hatred,  and  revenging  themfelves  on 
him,  for  the  Lois  of  their  Swine,  but  of  the  evil 
Spirits  coming  upon,  and  pofleffing  him  again. 
And  thus  may  we  beft  underftand  our  Lord's 
Refufal,  importing,  that  he  needed  not  to  be  un- 
der any  fuch  Apprehenfions;  that  the  fame 
Power,  which  had  delivered  him,  could  in  all 
Places  preferve  him. 

The  laft  Difficulty  relating  to  this  Cure,  is 
about  Matth.  viii.  29.  Art  thou  come  hither  to 
torment  us  before  the  Time  ?  This  Gentleman 
reprefents  it  thus;  "  When  it  is  aiked,  what 
"  Time  ?  the  common  Anfwer  is,  before  the 
"  Time  of  the  Day  of  Judgment,  until  which 
<c  the  evil  Angels  are  referved  in  Chains  under 
Darknefs,  2  Pet.  ii.  4.  Jude  6."  We  fee  then 
that  this  Opinion  has  fome  Countenance  from 
Scripture,  and  well  agrees  with  what  is  herein 
faid  of  the  Devils.  Nor  does  this  Author  deny 
this.  He  is  only  "  apt  to  think,  that  this  Paf- 
"  fage  may  be  more  juftly  and  confiftently  ac- 
"  counted  for  thus,"  viz.  by  taking  the  Mean- 
ing of  it  to  be,  "  art  thou  come  hither  —  un- 
feafonably,  fooner  than  was  delired  or  ex- 
pected, to  vex  us  ?  Or,  —  art  thou  come 
thus,  after  this  manner  untimely  to  torment 
us  ? '  But  fome  Queftions,  afked  before,  will 
here  return.  How  could  it  be  thought,  that 
our  Saviour  was  come  to  vex  them  ?  He  was 
"  known  fufficiently  thereabouts,  and  famed 
"  for  curing  all  Diforders:  "  But  was  He  famed 
for  tormenting  any  one  ?    How  then  could  Per- 

fons, 


(96) 

fons,  who  fo  well  underftood  His  Nature  and 
Office,  betray  at  the  fame  Time  fuch  grofs  Ig- 
norance of  His  way  of  acting,  and  entertain 
liich  undue  Sufpicions  of  Him  ?  Or  how  is  this 
His  coming  to  be  thought  unfeajonable,  orjboner 
than  was  expedied  and  dejired,  by  thofe,  who 
when  they  Jaw  Him  afar  off,  met  Him,  of  their 
own  accord,  in  a  quiet,  fubmiffive  Manner* 
and  (if  they  muft  be  thought  Madmen)  very 
probably,  with  Hopes  and  Delire  of  being 
cured  ? 

We  have  now  done  with  this  Miracle.  The 
Enquirer,  p.  74,    "  fubmits  whatever  he  has 

"  faid to  the  Judgment  of  the  candid  Rea- 

"  der."  I  do  the  fame,  only  begging  leave  to 
add,  that  if  there  are  fome  Difficulties  attend- 
ing this  Cafe  on  all  imaginable  Schemes,  as  'tis 
faid  there  are ;  on  our  Side,  they  are  entirely 
owing  to  our  Ignorance  of  the  Powers  of  Devils; 
on  his,  they  arife  from  a  manifeft  Repugnancy 
to  the  Accounts  of  the  Evangelifts. 

This  Gentleman  has  given  us  a  third  Objec- 
tion to  his  Scheme  in  thefe  Words;  "  Chriil 
u  fometimes  puts  Queftions  to  thefe  Demons, 
cc  afking  their  Names-,  fometimes  he  com- 
"  mands  them  to  bejtknf :  And  fometimes  to 
"  come  out  of  a  Man,  and  enter  no  more  into 
"  him.  Fid.  Mark  1.2  5.  Lukeiv  31.  Mark  ix. 
"  25."  There  is  nothing  in  his  Reply  to  this 
new,  or  that  has  not  been  confidered  already. 
He  makes  all  thefe  perfonal  Add reffes  and  Pro- 
perties to  belong  either  to  the  Man  affected,    or 

to 


(  97  ) 

to  Demons,  only  as  the  fuppofed  Caufe  of  fuch 
and  fuch  Diftempers.  Of  this  laft  Particular  we 
(hall  fay  more  by  and  by.  Of  the  other,  we  need 
only  add,  that  it  has  been  proved ;  that,  in  ma- 
ny Inftances,  what  is  laid  of,  and  to,  the  De- 
vils, can't  be  applicable  to  the  Men  ;  and  that 
where  they  may  be  fo,  as  they  are  exprefly  at- 
tributed to  thefe  Devils,  and  as  thefe  are  doubt- 
lefs  real  Beings  capable  of  them  ;  we  have  no 
Warrant  to  apply  them  to  the  Men,  unlefs  we 
confider  thefe  as  poffefled  by  them,  and  under 
their  Influence. 

Befides  thefe  Texts,  there  are  a  few  others, 
relating  to  this  Subject,  unconiidered  by  the 
Enquirer,  One  or  two  may  not  improperly  be 
mentioned  here.  Luke  iv.  35.  We  have  the 
following  Account  of  the  Cure  of  a  Demoniack, 
when  the  Devil  had  thrown  him  in  the  midji,  he 
came  out  of  him,  and  hurt  him  not.  My^h 
Qxd^ctv  cIvtov.  Thefe  laft  Words  {hew,  that 
this  is  not  fpoken  of  a  Dittemper.  Had  there 
been  nothing  more  than  this  in  the  Cafe,  there 
had  been  no  occafion  for  fuch  a  Remark.  For, 
can  a  Man  ever  be  hurt,  by  the  very  Act  of 
being  cured,  and  much  more  miraculoufly  cu- 
red, of  a  common  Diftemper?  This  therefore 
had  been  fuperflucus,  and  confequently,  in  all 
probability,  had  not  been  added  by  St.  Luke, 
had  not  he  Dn  jrder  proceeded  from  fomeBe^ 
ing,  who  might  naturally  be  thought  to  leave 
the  Man  with  fome  Reluctance  and  Violence, 
and  to  have  a  Power  to  hurt  him. 

N  Ano^ 


(98  ) 

Another  Text  is,  Acts  x.  38;  where  St. 
Peter,  giving  Cornelius  an  Account  of  Jesus, 
fays,  He  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all 
that  were  opprejjed  by  the  Devil,  k  Ico/lS/joz 
7rav]ci<?xg  KcdcbSwc&crtvQf/AvGvg  vVo  t£  oiaJoo&x, 
all  that  were  under  his  Power  and  Tyranny. 
This  may  well  be  thought  a  Paraphrafe  of  the 
Word  Saipovt&fjLtvoi.  We  here  fee,  not  only, 
what  the  true  Notion  of  the  Scripture  Demon  is, 
but  in  what  very  ftrong  Language  the  Pojjejji- 
ons  mentioned  in  the  Gofpel  are  afcribed  to 
him. 

Before  I  leave  this  Subject,  I  beg,  in  my 
turn,  to  afk  a  few  Queftions :  And  firffc,  if 
thefe  Demoniacks  were  no  other  than  Madmen* 
or  Epilepticks,  from  whence  proceeded  the  com- 
mon Opinion,  that  thefe  Diforders  were  owing 
to  Demons  t  This,  I  own  to  be  one  of  thofe 
Difficulties,  which  are  Matter  of  mere  Curiofi- 
ty,  and  of  no  Importance  to  the  Determination 
of  the  Queftion.  But  fo  are  thofe  objected  to 
the  literal  Meaning.  And  if  our  Curiofity  muft 
be  gratified  in  one  Cafe,  why  not  in  the  other  ? 
It  is  equally  as  proper  an  Enquiry,  why  there 
were  fo  many  Perfons,  at  lean:  vulgarly  ima- 
gined to  be,  poffeffedvX  that  Time  ;  as,  why  we 
have  fo  few  In  fiances  before,  or  why  fo  much 
Power  was  then  permitted  to  unclean  Spirits? 

Farther,  if  Superftition,  or  any  other  Caufe, 
fhould  be  allowed  fufficient  to  account  for  this 
Prejudice  in  the  common  People ;  yet,  whence 
were  all  their  Pharifees  and  Doctors  deceived  ? 

I£ 


C  99  D 

If  thefe  had  not  believed  the  Truth  of  thefe  Ca- 
fes, they  would,  no  doubt,  have  been  forward 
enough  to  have  objected  againft  them.  And, 
in  fo  many  Inftances,  had  they  all  been  Mi- 
ftakes,  it  muft  have  been  eafy  to  have  feen  the 
Falfenefs  of  the  vulgar  Notion. 

But  if  thefe  alfo  were  thus  led  away  with  a 
groundlefs  Fancy,  what  were  the  Naturalifts 
and  Phyficians  then  doing,  who  were  particu- 
larly engaged  in  fearching  into  the  Caufes  of 
Diftempers,  and  whofe  Intereft  and  Credit  it 
was,  to  overturn  fuch  an  Hypothefis ;  that  they 
did  not  detect  this  Pretence,  and  rightly  inform 
the  World  ?  If  this  had  been  done,  probably 
this  Language  had  been  foon  out  of  Ufe.  — St. 
Luke  was  one  of  this  Profeffion  ;  and  the  late 
learned  and  ingenious  Dr.  Freind  *  obferves  of 
him,  that  on  this  account,  his  Language  "  is 
"  more  fimple,  and  more  correct,  as  well  as 
"  more  phyjical?  And  yet  he  is  as  large  and 
copious  as  any  of  the  others,  in  Narrations  of 
Demoniacks. 

Lafily,  "  Why  would  Jefus  [Himfelf] 
countenance  fuch  a  Notion  as  this,  if  there 
were  really  no  fuch  Things  as  Demons,  nor 
Perfons  poffefled  by  them  ?  Why  would  He 
not  rid  Men  of  fuch  pernicious  Opinions,  and 
plainly  tell  them  that  thefe  Pofj'ejjions  were 
nothing  elfe  but  Lunacy  or  Epilepjy,  or  what- 
"  ever  other  Name  the  Diforder   had  ? "  This 


Vid.  Hiftory  of  Pfajick,  V.  I.    p.  222,  223,  224. 

N  2  Ob- 


C  I0°  1 

Ob;ecT:ion  is  made,  />.  76,  77,  of the  Enquiry ; 
it  is  owned  to  have  fome  Weight  in  it ;  and  a 
Reply  is  there  offered.  This  (hall  be  examined 
presently.  It  may  be  proper  to  (hew  firft,  in 
how  ftrong  a  manner  our  Lor.d  countenanced 
this  Notion.  He  did  not  barely  forbear  to  dis- 
prove it  -y  but  He  reafoned  upon  it ;  and  His 
Language  on  fome  particular  Occafions  fhews, 
that  He  believed  it.  When  His  calling  out  De- 
vils was  afcribed  to  Beelzebub,  in  His  Anfwer, 
He  argues  on  the  Suppofition,  that  PoJfeJJions 
particularly  belonged  to  this  wicked  Spirit,  were 
his  own  proper  Work,  and  contributed  to  fup- 
port  his  Power  and  Intereft.  What  is  all  this 
to  mere  Diftempers  ?  If  it  be  faid,  that  this  was 
an  Argument  ad  Homines,  I  anfwer,  that  as 
this  may  be  built  on  true  Premiifes ,  fhould  we 
grant  it  to  be  fuch,  we  can't  hence  conclude, 
that  Christ  difbelieved  the  Suppofition  He  ap- 
pears fo  plainly  to  allow.  But,  if  the  Phari- 
sees did  not  deferve  to  be  undeceived,  would  He 
have  fuftered  His  Difciples  alfo  to  continue  in 
Error  ?  And  yet,  when  He  had  a  fair  Oppor- 
tunity offered  Him  to  remove  this  their  Preju- 
dice, we  find,  He  falls  in  with  it,  and  confirms 
it.  Luke  x.  17,  18.  When  the  Seventy  re- 
turned with  foy,  faying,  even  the  Devils  are 
fubjedt  to  us,  thro  thy  Name  ;  He  anfwered 
them,  J  beheld  Satan  as  Lightning  fall  from 
Heaven  ,  and  at  the  fame  Time,  He  gave  them 
Power  to  tread  on  all  the  Power  of  the  Enemy. 
This  is  no  Argument  ad  Hominem.     It  bears 

an 


(  IGI  ) 

an  evident  Relation  to  their  Suppofition,  and 
feems  fully  to  juftify  it.  As  if  our  Lord  had 
faid,  "  ye  need  not  wonder  at  the  Devil's  being 
"  fubjefi  to  you  thro'  My  Name.  The  Time 
"  is  come,  when  their  Reign  on  Earth  muft 
"  end,  and  their  Tyranny  be  totally  deftroy- 
"  ed*" 

The  Reply  to  this  whole  Reafoning  is  this, 
that  "  the  Defign  of  the  Sacred  Writings"  is 
not  "  to  correct  the  Miftakes  of  Men  in  Phy- 
"  Jick"—  That  they  fpeak  even  of  God  cc  in 
"  the  Language  of  the  Vulgar,"  as  having 
Eyes,  and  Hands,  and  Ears,  that  they  fpeak  of 
the  Motion  of  the  Sun,  and  the  reft  of  the  Earth; 
—-That  the  Hypothefis  of  Demojis  ferved  the 
Purpofe  of  our  Saviour,  and  what  was  foreign 
to  it  He  avoided,  p.  77,  79.  I  anfwer,  That 
neither  of  thofe  Inftances  are  parallel  to  that 
we  are  examining.  This  is  neither  a  Point 
purely  indifferent,  as  one  of  them  is,  nor,  like 
the  other,  is  it  fufficiently  guarded  from  Mif- 
application.  If  the  Scriptures  fometimes  fpeak 
of  God  as  having  Parts  or  PaJJions,  the  better 
to  adapt  the  Difcourfe  to  our  Capacities ;  there 
can  be  no  Danger  of  Mifunderftanding  thefe ; 
fince  it,  in  many  other  Places,  fpeaks  of  Him 
as  a  Spirit,  without  any  Shape  or  Likenefs 
whatever.  Whereas  the  Suppofition  of  Poflefji- 
ons,  if  it  bean  Error,  is,  as  we  have  feen,  very 
often  laid  down  in  Scripture,  but  never  once 

*  Vid.  Grot,  Hammond,  Whithy,  &c,  in  \jqc. 

contra- 


(     102    ) 

contradided  therein.  Neither  is  it  g,  Point  of 
fuch  IndifFerency,  as  the  other  Inflance  of  the 
reji  of  the  Simy  &c.  is.  It  is  not  merely  a  Phy- 
fcal  Miftake,  but  one  that  naturally  tends  to 
very  pernicious  Confequences,  and  to  lead  Men 
into  all  manner  of  Superftitions.  And  therefore 
it  feems  to  be  highly  agreeable  to  our  Lord's 
Purpofe,  to  have  rooted  the  Notion  out  of  the 
Minds  of  His  Followers.  He  came  to  dejiroy 
the  Power  of  the  Devil,  and  can  we  then  ima- 
gine, that  He  would  leave  them  under  any  un- 
due Apprehenfions  of  this  Power  ?  Were  not 
the  Fears,  nay,  the  Idolatry  of  the  Heathen 
World,  much  occafioned  and  kept  up  by  the 
Notion  of  thefe  Pojfejjions  ?  And  would  not 
then  "  the  Caufe  of  the  one  God,  in  Oppofiti- 

"  on  to  "  fuch  Ci  Idolatry have  been  better 

<c  promoted^'  by  refuting  this  Notion,  and  tel- 
ling-Men at  once,  that  thofe  Fears  were  vain 
and  groundlcfs  ?  We  have  therefore  Reafon  to 
think,  that  had  thefe  commonly  receiv'd  Opi- 
nions been  all  an  Error,  our  Blefed  Lord 
would  never  have  given  them  any  countenance, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  would  have  oppofed 
them. 

By  God's  Permifiion,  I  have  now  gone  thro* 
this  Gentleman's  Scheme,  according  to  his  own 
Method,  and  left  nothing  pf  Moment  in  it  un- 
examined. The  Reader  has  now  the  Scripture 
Account  of  this  Matter  before  him,  and  is  left 
to  judge  impartially,  which  Senfe  is  moft  wor- 
thy of  his  Choice.     One  Thing  I  beg  leave  to 

add, 


(  io3  ) 

add,  fubmitting  it  to  his  moft  ferious  Confide- 
ration :  Whether  any  mere  Difficulty  has  not 
too  great  a  Regard  paid  it,  when,  to  avoid  it, 
we  have  recourfe  to  fuch  very  lax  and  figurative 
Interpretations  ?  And  whether  thefe  do  not  give 
occafion  to  the  Enemies  of  any  literal  Part  of 
the  Gofpel  to  interpret  it  away,  or  to  reprefent 
the  whole  as  an  unintelligible  Figure.  They 
have  their  Difficulties  too,  or  at  leaft  will  pre- 
tend to  have  them  *.  I  would  not  however  be 
underftood  to  fix  fuch  a  Confequence,  tho'  it 
appears  a  natural  one  to  me,  on  the  Enquirer. 
This  would  not  be  fair,  as  he  has  not  given  any 
Reaibn  to  believe  he  faw,  or  defigned  it :  And 
to  charge  Men  with  all  the  Confequences, 
which  may  be  deducible  from  their  Opinion,  i9 
neither  coniiftent  with  Peace,  nor  Charity  +. 

We  are  now  in  the  2d  Place  to  take  a  view  of 
the  general  Difficulties,  which  attend  the  lite- 
ral Senfe,  and  which  _  gave  occafion  to  this  De- 
bate. Thefe  are  thus  fummed  up  in  the  firft 
Page  of  the  Enquiry.  C£  How  comes  it  to  pafs, 
that  we  read  of  fo  many  Perfons,  juji  at 
that  particular  Time,  under  the  Power  of 
Devils?  Whence  is  it  that  we  feern  fo  rarely 
to  meet  with  Accounts  of  the  fame  Diforders- 
among  Men,  either  before  or  after  the  Times 
of  J  ejus  Chrift  f  Whence  was  it,  that  God 
permitted  fo  much  Power  to  fuch.  unclean  Spi- 


c< 
etc 

ii. 
<< 

CC 


*  How  Woolfton  argued  on  this  very  Subjedt,  See  Bifhop  Smat- 
broke 's  Vindicat.  V.   I .  p.  344. 

f  See  Archbifhop  Sbarpis  Sermon  on  Rom.  xiv.    19. 

4  "  rits3 


(   io4  ) 

"  rits,  who  delight  in  doing  Mifchief  ?  "  In 
anfwer  to  which  Difficulties,  I  will  firft  confi- 
der  the  State  of  the  Fact,  and  fee  whether  we 
can't  get  fome  Abatement  of  them,  from  hence. 

Then,  view   the  feveral  Reafons,    which 

have  been  given  to  account  for  this  Difficulty, 
— Lajlly,  fee,  whether  any  ill  Confequences 
can  juftly  arife,  mould  we  even  acknowledge, 
that  it  can't  be  clearly  accounted  for. 

Let  us  enquire,  whether  we  can  get  any  Help 
from  viewing  more  narrowly  the  State  of  the 
Fact. — Was  this  exadtly  as  it  is  here  reprefent- 
ed  ?  Do  we  "  fo  rarely  meet  with  the  Accounts 
"  of  the  fame  Diforders,  —  either  before  or 
after  the  Times  of  Jefus  Chrift  ? "  With  regard 
to  the  Times  of  Heathenifm,  we  have,  in  a 
great  meaiure  feen  the  contrary.  This  Gentle- 
man owns,  that  there  "  were  always  Cafes Jiip- 
"  foJedioheyo&fie&bytbeGods"  p.  78.  And 
we  have  fhewn,  how  probable,  nay  how  cer- 
tain, it  is,  that  many  of  thefe  were  real  Cafes  of 
Perfons  poffefled  by  Devils,  under  the  Difguife, 
and  Titles  of  the  Pagan  Deities.  Their  Oracles 
I  muft  infill  upon  as  a  clear  and  ftanding  In- 
ftance.  And  I  will  add,  that  this  Notion  of 
Demoniacks,  among  them,  was  not  the  Notion 
only  of  common  ignorant  People,  but  of  the 
greateft  Philofophers.  We  need  only  mention 
Plato,  who  reafoned  upon  it.  For  thus  Cle- 
mens  Alexa?idrinus  introduces  him,  as  attribu- 
ting a  peculiar  Dialect  to  the  Gods,  and  conclu- 
ding this  from  Dreams^  and  Oracles^  and  from 

the 


(  io5  ) 

the  Demoniacks,  who  do  ?iotfpeak  their  own  Lan- 
guage or  Dia/cc7,  but  that  of  the  Demons^  who 
were  entered  into  them  *.  We  fee  here  the  Sen- 
timents and  Judgment  of  this  wife  Man.  He 
fpeaks  of  thefe,  in  Terms  which  cannot  be  ap- 
plied to  Madnefs,  &c,  and  as  of  Cafes,  the 
Truth  of  which  he  made  no  doubt  of.  And 
yet,  had  they  been  erroneous,  he  mufl  certain- 
ly have  had  Opportunities  to  difcover  them;  he 
certainly  had  Abilities  to  dofo;  and  there  is  no 
room  to  think,  he  wanted  an  Inclination  to 
find  out,  or  to  fpeak,  the  Truth. 

Among  the  Jews,  I  hope,  I  may  have  leave 
to  call  Saul  an  undeniable  Inftance  of  Pojjefjion. 
Others  there  undoubtedly  were,  as  has  been 
fhewn  above. 

To  come  then  to  the  Times  after  our  Savi- 
our. — Here  we  have  Evidence  enough.  Thefe 
Cafes  were  fo  far  from  being  rare  or  unufual^ 
that  we  meet  with  them  in  almoft  every  Au- 
thor. Plutarch's  Teflimony  to  the  Reality  of 
them  in  his  Days,  we  have  iccn  already.  He 
lived  about  the  Year  no.  Lucian,  who  flou- 
riflied  about  the  fame  Time,  tho',  as  his  man- 
ner is,  he  treats  the  Subject  in  a  icoffing  Way, 
yet  bears  fufficient  Witnefs  to  the  common  Per- 
iuafion,  and  mentions  fome,    who  deliver  the 

*    'O  nXoLTM    3    X?  foTq  BtoTq    tfW PiiKlcv    CtfTOVSfAU    Tim.    [AtzXiTX   fAfSt 

utto  rm   cvtqolrm    Tcx.fjux^{fjua<^h    tu    Tan   xpwpav,    uXbaq    at,    xai 
«W7o   T6)v  octtfjuovctivlw* ,    o)  ivy    (tvToit  a"  fyQiyitAcu  <puvi)v    4a i    J»<*A*x- 

rey,   otx^u  t»\  tuv  IxiurwAaiv  okifjucfuv.     Clem.  Alex.   Strom.  I. 
Ed.  Par.  1631.  p.  $38. 

O  Demo- 


(  io6  ) 

Demoniacks  from  their  terrors  *,  —  And  im- 
mediately afterwards,  he  plainly  alludes  to  thefe 
Cures   of    our  Saviour,    faying.     And  thefe 
Things  I  need  not  fpeak,  every  one  knowing,  that 
That  Syrian  of  PaUfline,  fkilful  in  thefe  Mat- 
ter's,  recovered  as  many  as  were  Epileptick,  &c. 
—  And  again  he  adds,  the  Jick  Man  himfelf  is 
Jilent,  but  the  Devil  anfwers,  either  in  the  Lan- 
guage of  the  Greeks  or  Barbarians,  or  of  what 
Country  foever  he  be,  by  what  Means,  or  from 
whence  he  entered  into  the  Man  :  But  He,  exor- 
cifing  the  Devil,  and  alfo  threatning  him,  if  he 
did  not  obey,  drives  him  out.     I  might  here  add 
the  Teftimony  of  Porphyry  -f-,   and  of  Philo- 
flratus,  who  makes  Apoflonius  Tyanaus,  in  or- 
der to  rival  Jesus  Christ,  caftout  an  unclean 
Spirit  -,  but  I  chufe  to  come  to  Authors  of  more 
undoubted  Credit,   the  ancient  Fathers  and  A- 
pologifts.    And,  I  am  fenfible,  that  here  I  muft, 
in  fbme  meafure,  anticipate  the  Enquiry  the 
Gentleman  propofes  to  make  into  the  Senfe  of 
thefe ;  which  I  mould  not  do,  if  it  were  not  ne- 
ceifary  to  a  true  Account  of  the  State  of  the  Dif- 

*  -—  Oo~oi  t«$  autfAovuvlxi;  0C7txXXciT%<rt  rut  $u\hOLTm ,  ara» 
c-ctQZs  thfhv\t<;  j^  Tot,  <pai<rpoC\x.  t£  tccvtm  »'x  iyA  #p>3  biyuv,  ciXh% 
trcct^tq  ?<rct(ri  rot  Xupov  rev  c*  7775  IlxXctww,  rh  in)  tiztch  <ro<pHr- 
Tt)*t  o<rfeK  5r#p#A«£wi»  xa.TctytW\ov]eii  srpoc  tw  trtXrpWi  x^  tu  o<p$uX- 
fbot  dloif£t<Poi/]ci<;y  xj  aVftf  JT</w»5TA«tr/^e»«5  to  fip>*,  ofjueoi;  ccv\?i)<rtf 
*2  at7ro7Tef/j7ru  aprias  ■■  ■  ■  ©  yAv  *6<ru»  eturoq  <riv7r<£t  0  axif/uuv  3 
urrottpUtTcci,  tXXtjt *£*",  >J  ftccpGctpifyv,  v,  «6tv  ett  ctvros  yt  cxai  rt  ^ 
o6tt  i7rn*Qt¥  £j  tov  dtfyunw  0  3,  ojpxa?  i^Uyut,  ti  St  jav  nuorSsw, 
xj  cCxuXSv,  iltXduvu  rtv  Jkipovoi.  Lucian  in  Philopfeud.  Ed.  Par. 
p.  333. 

f  It  may  be  feen  in  Eufeb.  Pr#p.  Evang.  L.  IV.  c.  23. 

ficulty, 


(  107  ) 

ficulty,  as  well  as  to  put  out  of  all  Doubt  the 
literal  Meaning  of  the  Scripture  Demoniacks, 
I  (hall  only  fet  down  a  few  Teftimonies,  which 
feem  moft  clear  and  exprefs,  out  of  the  many*, 
which  might  be  produced  to  this  Purpofe. 

We  begin  with  J 'ufiin  Martyr,  who,  in  his 
Dialogue  with  T'rypho,  ufes  this  Argument  -f~, 
as  you  may  even  now,  ifyoupleafe,  be  eajily  con- 
vinced by  the  things  done  before  your  Eyes ;  For 
by  this  very  Name  of  the  Son  of  God,  thefirfl- 
born  oj  every  Creature,  who  was  born  of  a  Vir- 
gin, and  was  made  a  Man  liable  to  Sufferings, 
and  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  by  the  Peo- 
ple of  your  Nation,  and  died,  rofe  again,  and 
afcended  into  Heaven,  [in  His  Name]  every  De- 
vil being  adjured,  is  conquered,  and  obliged  to 
fubmit.—  And  in  another  Place,  this  Author 
gives  the  following  Reafon  for  praying  to  be 
prefervedyr0#z  wicked  and  deceiving,  orwander- 

*  Whoever  would  fee  more,  may  confult,  Whitby  s  General 
Preface,  to  the  Epiji.  p.  26,  &c. 

•f*  'Slq  xj  wv  cm  tujv  wit'  e'l^ty  yivoybiiw  p£ov  v'f/jZc  iriirQwett,  lot* 
SAjjtj.  Kark  y>  rS  o\o'/WI©-  <xuxh  thtx  liS  rS  3-s»,  xj  7rpvTo- 
roicii  7ru<rtK  kThtsius,  xj  2iL£  srafO^a  ymu0£/](^,  xj  sra&jTa  ytvofjutva 
ayfyaxa,  xj  su»ya§i{\<§>*  ix)  HovTia  HfaUm  vito  ra  "hot,**  Cfjuuv,  x£ 
aVoflayo'/]®-',  xj  it\u,i;oL{\<&  ix.  vtxf&iv,  xj  awCa/]^  *»§  tov  uqcLvov,  7toii 
JkifA/oviov  ifyfKitp  (fyov  vticecrui,  xj  v7roTtttr<rtTUi.  Ed.  Par.  p.  3  I  I.  — 
Oj  xj  ryv  tS  ovo fjbul&t  iy\v  xj  Tec  octifjuoviX  Tp//xj<,  xj  G"V[Ji/t*et  ifyfuctty- 
fdflet  ttecTot  t»  ovdfAx1<&''li)<rij  Xotfb   rS  $-«vp«y0Ei/](§K*  in)  Tlo/iis  ITiAet t& 

TH  yi*0[AZVtS  i7TtTQ07ru  T>)$  'ifc^kia?,  V7TCT0t<rCrtT0Hf  &<;  xj  gal  rttm  7rZ<rt 
QcCVifO*    tiVXl,     071   0   IlaT>)p    UVTH    TCtrOtVTTjV  tabiKiV  CC'JTuJ  JvVCtfAWy    U?t  Kj 

rot  ^oci^juonx  yTolaVo-sepJ  ru  ovofActri  etwra,  xj  t>j  t«  ytvof/uivx  jraSa? 
uvtS  eUovo^'iot.      Jbtd.    p.  247.  ■  K«t  vvv  ifAtis  el  7ri,sivoS\i<; 

liei  rov  sot,vye>>UAu>  fV*  Uov7i8  U^xm  'l»j<rai»  Kvgicv  jj/xwv,  rot  obu- 
piQviec  TTotvlet  xj  wttvfjiioclei  ffcwf*  *|ofx{£<w1*$,  b7TOTot<r<roptvot  Hft~v  s%o- 
f«v.     Ibid,  p.  302. 

O  2  ing9 


(  108  )  . 

tng,  Spirits.  At  the  Power  of  His  Name,  even 
the  Devils  tremble,  and  at  this  Day,  being  ex- 
orcifed in  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ,  —  be- 
come fubjetJ.  So  that  it  is  from  hence  manifejl 
to  all  Men,  that  His  Father  hath  given  Him  fo 
great  a  Power,  that  even  the  Devils  are  Jubjeffi 
to  His  Name,  and  to  the  Difpenjation  of  His 
Pafijion.——  And  again  he  fays,  and  now  we  that 
believe  in  our  Lord  Jesus,  that  was  crucified 
tinder  Pontius  Pilate,  exorcifing  all  Devils,  and 
wicked  Spirits,  have  thcmJuhjeSi  to  us. 

cTheophilus  of  Ant ioch  writes  thus,  Demoni- 
acks  are  fomttimes  even  to  this  Day,  exorcifed 
in  the  Name  of  the  Living  God,  and  thefe  de- 
ceitful Spirits  confejs  them/elves  to  be  Devils,  8cc. 
*.  Lrenceus,  fpeaking  of  the  miraculous  Pow- 
ers given  to  the  true  Difciples  of  Christ,  and 
exorcifed  by  theni  in  His  Name,  mentions  the 
difpoffeffing  evil  Spirits  in  the  firft  Place,  and 
very  fufficiently  diftinguifhes  it  from  the  Cure 
of  Difeafes.  Some,  fays  he,  certainly  and  tru- 
ly ejeffi  Devils  -,  injbmuch  that  thofe  who  are 
thus  healed  and  cleanfed,  are  often  converted  to 
the  Faith,  and  remain  in  the  Church.  And  af- 
ter reciting  the  Gifts  of  Prophecy,  communica- 
ted to  others,  he  adds,  and  others  heal  the  Sick, 
by  Lmpofition  of  Hands,  andreflore  them  whole  ||. 
But  of  all  ancient  Writers,    none  is  more  ex- 

prefs 

*  Ot  2cti[Jt.ovSi]t(;  Inert  *}  /4J#p«  rS  hufo  i£cf>t'i£ov1ca  kxtx  T»  ovo- 
fjbtt]<&>  Td  {>*}<&•  B-tSy  H3  bpoXoyiT  uvtoc.  rot  TPiay«  xnt*[AXTX  tlvXi 
fuipevtt;.     Ad.  Autol.  Ed.  Ox.  1.  2.   p.  77. 

j    O*  fjutv  yxf  Sxipovuq   i^xvva<n  fiiGx'ws  ^  oito$a)$,  *>?s  ve^axtq 


(  109  ) 

prefs  to  this  Purpofe  than  Ttertullian  in  his 
Apology,  who  appeals  to  the  very  Eyes  and  Ears 
of  the  Enemies  of  Christianity,  and  makes 
the  following  very  remarkable  Challenge.  "  Let 
there  appear  before  your  Judgment  Seats  one, 
who  is  certainly  pojfejjed  with  a  Devil ;  that 
Spirit,  being  commanded  by  any  Chrijlian 
to  fpeak,  will  as  truly  confefs  himfelf  to  be  a 
cc  Devil,  as  in  other  Places  he  falfely  calls 
"  himfelf  a  God.  Even  fo,  let  there  be  pro- 
<c  duced  one  of  thofe,  who  are  thought  to  fuf- 

*c  fer  from  a  God If  thev  do  not  own  them- 

felves  Devils,  not  daring  to  lie  to  a  Chrijlian ; 
fhed  the  Blood  of  that  Chrijlian  in  the 
fame  Place,  as  of  a  moft  fhamelefs  Deceiver. 
— If  on  the  other  fide,  they  are  truly  Gods, 
why  do  they  bely  themfelves,  and  confefs 
the  Name  of  Devils?  Do  they  this  in 
"  Obedience  to  us  ?  Then  is  your  Deity  now 
"  fubject  to  Chriflians  *."  Minutius  Felix 
comes  next  in  order  of  Time,   and  gives  us 


tJv  %uyav  exiSfcias  luvrccty  t£j  vynTq  ctTroKeiB'tfzla'iv.  Adv.  Hasref. 
1.    2.    C.  57. 

*  Edatur  hie  aliquis  Tub  tribunalibus  veftris,  quern  Dasmone  agi 
conftet,  jufTus  aquolibet  Chriftiano  loqui  Spiritus  ille,  tarn  fe  Da> 
monem  confitebitur  devero,  quam  alibi  Deum  de  falfo.  JEquc 
producatur  aliquis  ex  iis,  qui  de  Deo  pati  exiltimantur,  qui  aris 
inbalantes  numen  de  nidQre  concipiunt,    qui  ructando  conantur, 

qui  anhelando  profantur Nifi  fe  Dasmones   confeffi  fuerint, 

Chriftiano  mentiri  non  audentes,  ibidem  illius  Chriftiani  procaciffimi 
fanguinem  fundite — Si  altera  parte  vere  Dei  funt,  cur  tez  Daemonia 
mentiuntur?  An,  ut  nobis  obfequantur?  Jam  ergo  fubjecta 
Chriftianis  divinitas  veftra.     Tertul.  Jpologet.  $ecl,  23. 

much 


(no) 

much  the  fame  account  in  much  more  elegant 
Laiaguage.  After  he  has  largely  defcribed  the 
Nature  and  different  Operations  of  impure 
Spirits  and  Devils,  with  regard  to  their  Ora- 
cles, Prophets,  &c.  he  goes  on,  "  all  this,  as 
is  known  by  mod,  by  feveral  among  your- 
felves,  the  very  Devils  confefs  of  themfelves, 
as  often  as  we  drive  them  out  of  Bodies  by 
the  Tortures  and  Force  of  our  Words,  and 
the  Vehemence  and  Warmth  of  our  Invo- 
cations  Believe  them,  when  they  teftify 

themfelves  to  be  Devils,  and  thus  confefs  the 
Truth.  For  being  adjured  by  the  true  and 
only  God,  Mifery  and  Horror  feizes  them 
within  the  Bodies,  [they  poffefs]  and  they 
are  either  forced  to  depart  out  of  them  im- 
mediately, and  at  once,  or  by  Degrees  to 
leave  them  ;  according  as  the  Cure  is  for- 
warded by  the  Faith  of  the  Patient,  or  the 
Favour  of  the  Exorcift  *."  No  lefs  ftrong 
to  this  Purpofe  is  Origen,  in  his  famous  Dif- 
courfe  again  ft  Celfus ;  in  Anfwer  to  whom, 
when  he  objedled  againft  thefe  Cures  of  the 
Chrijlians,  as  made  by  Invocations  of  certain 
Demons y  the  Father  fays,  "  that  they  do  not 


*  Hsec  omnia  fciunt  plerique,  pars  veftrum,  ipfos  Dasmonas 
de  femetipfis  confiteri,  quoties  a  nobis  tormentis  verborum,  & 
orationis  incendiis  de  corporibus  exiguntur — Ipfis  teftibus  cffe  eos 
Daemonas  de  fe  verum  confitentibus  credite.  Adjurati  enim  per 
Deum  verum&  folum,  inviti,  miferi,  corporibus  inhorrefcunt,  et 
vel  exiliunt  ftatim,  vel  evanefcunt  gradatim,  prout  fides  patientis 
adjuvat,  aut  gratia  curantis  afpirat.  Minuc.  Fe/.  Ofiav.  Ed. 
Ludg.  Batav.  p.  30,  3 1 , 

"  think 


( *II ) 

c*  think  to  prevail  by  [fuch]  Invocations,  but  by 
<c  the  Name  of  Jesus,  together  with  reciting 
cc  the  feveral  Particulars  of  His  Hiftory.  For 
<c  the  mention  of  thefe  have  often  forced  the 

"  Devils  out  of  Men." And  again,    <c  So 

"  great  is  the  Power  of  the  Name  of  Jesus 
againft  Devils ;  that  it  has  Succefs,  even 
when  named  by  wicked  Perfons,  as  Jesus 
taught  faying,  many  Jhall  fay  to  me  in  that 

JDay,  &c.   Mat.  vii.  22. It  is  plain,  that 

Chrijlians  ufe  none  of  the  Arts  of  Enchan- 
ters, but  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  other  Do&rines,  &c  -J-."  Cyprian  is  full 
of  fuch  Teftimonies.  I  mall  only  quote  one  from 
his  Letter  to  Demetrianus,  who  was,  as  fome 
think,  Proconful  of  Africa,  but,  according  to 
others,  a  Judge  or  Connfellor  in  Carthage  ;  cer- 
tainly a  Man  of  Power  and  Authority,  and  a 
bitter  Enemy  to  the  Chrijlians.  This  Letter 
therefore  is  of  the  fame  Kind  as  an  Apology : 
In  it,  we  find  the  good  Bifhop  applying  to  him 
thus :  "  O  !  that  you  would  but  hear  and  fee 
"  the  Gods  of  the  Gentiles,  when  they  are  ad^ 
"  jured  by  us,  and  tormented  with  our  fpiri- 
"  tual  Scourges,   and  call   out  of  the  Bodies, 

yjirx  *«?   ot7ruyfi?\kec<;  ruv   srjpt  otvrcv  Woy'wv.     rccijrcc   ykc  teydu!Lstt 

xoMetKii;   Tttq  a<3CifA.ovccs   7ti7Folr)Kti   ectfyvTra)*  xaeurQwui  retra- 

tok  jjiiiv  yt  dvvx]xi  to  ovofAX  t«  'lyes  kcctu  tuv  £a,tu.£vMt  lac,  \<r^ 
zTt  jcJ  vno  (pxvhav  *vou<,cc£q '/loivov  cCwuv,  oxs*  ^Uq-kuv  0  'li)<r3$  'i\zyi 
>  '  <rct<pt<;  on  Xyiftuvol  xPffjuicc  (/ttherv)  ina^uv  %oa>/ju(vn  hrvf^x- 
ivc-i,  a.X'h'x  ru  ovdf/tccri  rS  'IvoS,  kxI  ecWav  ho'ym  nimstu^Uui 
kutu  tjj\  S-ikv  yp«4>»jV  Orig.  COM.  Cdf.  1.  I.  Ed.  Cantab. 
p.  7.     Vid.  I.7.  p.  334. 


(    H2    ) 

<c  they  poffefTed,  by  the  force  of  our  Words, 
"  when  crying  out,  and  lamenting  with  an 
"  human  Voice,  arid  feeling  the  Strokes  of  a 
"  Divine  Power,  they  confefs  the  Judgment 
"  to  come.  Come,  and  know  the  Truth  of 
what  we  fay.  And,  fince  you  fo  pretend  to 
worfhip  the  Gods,   believe  at  leaft  the  very 

Gods,  you  worfhip You  fhall  fee  us  fup- 

plicated  by  thofe,  whom  you  fupplicate, 
feared  by  thofe,  whom  you  fear,  whom 
you  adore.  You  fhall  fee  thofe  ftanding 
<c  bound  under  our  Hands,  and  trembling  like 
Captives,  whom  you  reverence  and  wor- 
fhip, as  your  Lords.  Surely  even  thus  you 
muft  be  afhamed  of  thofe  your  Errors, 
when  you  fhall  fee  and  hear  your  Gods,  on 
our  queftioning  them,  immediately  betray 
what  they  are,  and  not  able,  though  you 
are  prefent,  to  conceal  thofe  their  Cheats  and 
Delufions  §."  Arnobius's  Teftimony  to  this 
Point   has   been  produced  before.      We  may 

§  O  fi  audire  eos  [Deos  gentium]  velles  et  videre,  quando  a 
nobis  adjurantur,  et  torquentur  fpiritalibus  flagris,  &  verborum 
tormentis  de  obiefiis  arporibus  ejiciuntur,  quando  ejulantes,  et 
gcmentes  voce  humana,  et  poteftate  divina  flagella  &  verbera  fen- 
tientes,  venturum  judicium  confitentur.  Veni  et  cognofce  vera 
efle,  qux  dicimus.     Et  quia  fie  Deos   colere  te  dicis,  vel  ipfls, 

quos  colis,  crede Videbis   nos   rogari  ab  iis,  quos  tu  rogas, 

timeri  ab  iis,  quos  tu  times,  quos  tu  adoras.  Videbis  Tub  man u 
nolM  Hare  vinclos,  &  tremere  Captivos,  quos  tu  fufpicis  et  ve- 
neraris  ut  Dominos.  Certe  vel  fie  confundi  in  litis  erroribus  tuis 
poteris,  quando  confpexeris  et  audjeris  Deos  tuos,  quid  fint,  inter- 
rogavionc  nottra  fhtim  prodere,  &  pradentibus  licet  vobis,  prafti- 
gias  illas  &  fallacies  fuas  non  poflecelare.  Cyprian.  Op.  Ed.  Ox. 
p.  191 .  Vid.  ctiam  ad  Donat.  p.  4.  &  de  Idol.  Vanit.  p.  14* 

therefore 


cc 
i< 
<c 
cc 

CC 

cc 


cc 
cc 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


(  "3  ) 

therefore  pafs  to  LaBantius,  who  fpeaks  in 
exaftly  the  fame  Language,  and  who  (hall  be 
the  laft  Author  cited,  on  this  Occafion.  He 
fays,  that  the  Spirits  "  adjured  by  the  Name 
of  God,  depart  out  of  Bodies,  And  that  be- 
ing, as  it  were,  fcourged  by  the  Words  of 
good  Men,  they  not  only  confefs  themfelves 
to  be  Devils,   but  alfo  declare  their  Names 

Which  they  moft  commonly  do  before 

their  Worfhippers Becaufe  they  can  nei- 
ther lye  to  God,  by  whom  they  are  adjured, 
not  yet  to  good  Men,  by  whofe  Voice  they 

<c  are  tormented." And  again,  "  How  great 

a  Terror  this  Sign  is  to  Devils  muft  be  known 
by  any  one,  who  will  fee,  how  being  ad- 
jured by  Chri/l,  they  fly  out  of  the  Bodies 
they  pofTerTed.  For  as  He  himfelf,  when 
He  lived  among  Men,  caft  out  all  Devi  Is 
with  His  Word,  and  reftored  to  their  for- 
mer Senfes,  Men,  whofe  Minds  were  diftrac- 
u  ted  by  the  Aflaults  of  evil  Spirits :  So  do  His 
"  Followers  now  caft  the  fame  impure  Spi- 
<c  rits  out  of  Men,  both  in  the  Name  of  their 
tc  Mafter,  and  by  the  Sign  of  His  Paffion  *  " 

P  Thus 


*  t Cujus  [Dei]  nomine  adjurati,   de  corporibus  excedunt. 

Quorum  [juftorum]  verbis,  tanquam  flagris,  verberati,  non  mo- 
do  Dzemonas  fe  efle  confitentur,  fed  etiam  nomina  fua  edunt. 
-^ Quod  plerunque  coram  cultoribus  fuis  faciunt — Quia  nee  Deo, 
per  quern  adjurantur  ;  nee  juftis,  quorum  voce  torquentur,  men- 
tiri  poflunt.  DeOng.  Error.  Cap.  xv.  Ed.  Spark,  p.  193,  194. 
•  ■  Quanto  terrori  lint  Dasmonibus  hoc  lignum,  fciet,  qui  vidc- 
rit,  quatenus  adjurati  per  Chriftum,  de  corporibus,  qua;  obfede- 

rint. 


cc 
tc 
cc 
<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


cc 

* 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 

cc 
cc 


(  >H  ) 

Thus  we  fee,  the  Accounts  of  the  belt  Wri- 
ters of  the  three  firft  Centuries  are  very  uniform 
in  this  Matter.  How  this  Gentleman,  in  his 
fecond  intended  Enquiry  will  be  able  to  get 
over,  or  to  explain  them,  fo  as  to  make  them 
agreeable  to  his  Scheme,  I  muft  confefs,  I  am 
not  able  to  imagine.  The  Difficulty  is  furely 
great :  The  Points  attefted  are  open  Faffs : 
There  can  be  therefore  no  room  for  any  Char- 
ges of  Enthujiafm\  which  does  not  relate  to 
Fac7s,  but  Opinions.  As  little  Reafon  have  we 
to  fufpecl:  any  Mi/takes.  The  Cafes  are  repre- 
fented  as  very  numerous :  Their  Enemies  were 
called  upon  to  examine  into  them  :  They  were 
called  upon,  in  Controverfial  Writings,  and  in 
folerrin  Apologies :  The  Truth  of  Chrijlianity 
was  in  a  manner  put  upon  it,  as  a  certain  and 
undoubted  Teft :  This  Fact  was  of  fuqh  a 
Nature,  as  to  be,  in  the  higheft  manner,  re- 
flecting on  the  Heathen  Religion,  and  dero- 
gatory to  the  Honour  of  their  fancied  Deities, 
If  it  could  therefore  have  been  dirproved,  would 
not  they,  who  were  fo  very  zealous  for  thefe, 
have  gladly  taken  hold  on  fuch  an  Occafion, 
to  have  vindicated  them,  and  laid  fo  juft  a  Re- 
proach on  Christians  ? 

The  prefent  Bijhop  of  Lichfield  calls    the 

rint,  fugiant :  nam,  ficut  ipfe,  cum  inter  homines  ageret,  uni- 
verfos  Daemones  verbo  fugabat,  hominumque  mentes  emotas,  et 
malis  incurfibus  furiatas,  in  fenfus  priftinos  reponebat ;  ita  nunc 
fecta tores  ejus  eofdem  fpiritus  inquinatos  de  hominibus,  et  nomine 
magiftri  fui,  et  figno  paflionis  excludunt.  Id.  de  'vera  Sapient. 
L.  IV.  c.  27.  f.  397. 

Apologies 


r  *«5 1 

Apologies  of  the  antient  Fathers  u  fbme  of  the 
"  very  beft  of  their  Productions  4V'     And  in- 
deed, there  was  need  enough  of  their  being  ex- 
act and  correct  in  thefe.     No  lefs  than  the  Lives 
and  Safety  of  all  the  ChriJIians,  or  of  many  of 
them,    depended    thereon.      Let  us    confider 
a  fet  of  Men,  holding  a  Faith  contrary  to  the 
Profeffion  of  the  Civil  Govemours,  who  there- 
upon mifreprefented  and  reviled  it ;  and,  when 
this  would  not  do,  attempted  to  ftop  the  Pro- 
grefs  of  it  by  Perfecution  and  Torments.     Se- 
veral of   thofe  Sufferers,  at  once  to  vindicate 
their  Religion  and  Characters,  and  to  obtain  an 
End  of  their  Miferies,   prefent  folemn  AddreiTes 
to  the   very  Chief  of  their   Enemies  -,  all  of 
them  agree  in  afferting  a  Fact,  as  common  and 
well  known  \   dare  the   others  to  look  into  it, 
and  make  Trial  of  it  ;  put  the  Succefs  of  their 
Caufe  upon  it  5  and  make  a  voluntary  Offer  of 
forfeiting  their  Lives,  if  it  fhould  fail.— And  can 
we,  in  thefe  Circumftances,   think  fuch  a  Fad: 
falfe  ?  Could  Men  ever  {hew  a  fuller  AiTu  ranee 

of  the  Truth  of  any  *  ? But  perhaps  the 

Apologifis  were  themfelves  fome  of  the  Enqui- 
rer's Demo?iiacks,  Madmen.     No thefe  very 

Works  contradict  fuch  a  Suppofition.  They 
are  written  in  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  Sobernefs, 
Calmnefs,  and  Decency.  Befides  the  Event  of 
fprne  of  them  abundantly  juftifies  their  Un- 


■f  Vindication,  &c.  V.  I.  p.  65. 

J  Vid.  Nicolii  Conference,  V.  II.  p.  147,   148. 


P  2  der- 


(   n6   ) 

derftandings,  as  well  as  the  Truth  of  their  Af 
fertions.  Madmen,  we  may  be  fure,  would 
not  have  been  liftened  to :  And  any  Falfhood 
would  have  been  far  from  doing  Service,  would 
certainly  have  aggravated  the  Malice  of  their 
Enemies,  and  given  thefe  a  real  handle  to  afflict 
them,  ftill  more.  Whereas,  many  of  thofe 
Apologies  quenched  the  Violence  of  the  Fire  of 
Perfecution,  and  obtained  Refcripts  and  Decrees 
in  favour  of  Chriftianity.  We  may  there- 
fore receive  for  undoubted  Truths,  whatever 
Facls  they  all  advanced  in  this  manner  :  We 
may  depend  upon  their  Care  in  making  Affer- 
tions,  the  Falfhood  of  which  they  would  foon 
have  anfwer'd  with  their  Lives. 

How  long  the  Power  of  cajling  out  Devils 
continued  in  the  Church,  I  cannot  fay.  There 
is  Reafon  to  think,  it  remained  after  the  other 
miraculous  Gifts  were  ceafed.  For,  as  Arch- 
BiJJjop  billot  fin  obferved,  "  The  Power  of 
"  cafting  out  Devils,  which  was  moft  com- 
mon (for  every  Chriflian  had  it)  continued 
longeft ;  and  there  was  Reafon  it  mould  con- 
tinue, fo  long  as  the  Devil  reigned,  and  the 
Pagan  Idolatry  was  kept  up,  to  fhew  that 
the  Spirit  of  Chrift  was  fuperior  to  the  Devil, 
and  would  finally  overcome  him,  and  over- 
throw his  Kingdom ; — and  this  appeared,  in 
that  they  were  able  in  the  Name  of  Chrift 
to  caft  him  out,  wherever  he  had  taken 
Poffeflion,  which  God  permitted  to  be  very 
"  frequent  in  thofe  Times,  for  the  more  glori- 


cc 
cc 
cc 
<c 
<c 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


"  ous 


(  **7  ) 

fi  ous  Manifeftation  of  His  Power  in  cafting 
"  out  the  Prince  of  the  World.  But  when  the 
"  Powers  of  the  World  became  Chriftian,  and 
the  Heathen  Idolatry  wras  every  where  over- 
thrown, and  Satan's  Kingdom  every  where 
deftroyed,  then  this  miraculous  Gift  alfo 
ceafed,  there  being  no  further  occafion  for  it*." 
From  this  State  of  the  Fact  we  find,  that 
the  Foundation  of  the  Difficulty  before  us  is  far 
from  being  altogether  certain  ;  that  we  do  not 
fo  very  rarely  meet  writh  In  fiances  of  Demo- 
niacks  before,  or  after,  our  Saviour's  Time  ; 
and  consequently,  that  it  muft  lofe  much  of 
its  Force.  However,  I  own,  this  does  not  en- 
tirely remove  it.  The  Inftances  before  Chrift 
were  but  few,  in  Comparifon  to  thofe  about 
that  Age :  And  we  have  long  been  without  any 
of  undoubted  Evidence.  I  (hall  therefore  next 
propofe  fome  Solutions  of  this,  fome  Reafons, 
which  learned  Men  have  given  to  account  for 


it. 


We  have  two  of  this  fort  in  Lightfoot,  which 
are  the  fame  offered  by  Bartholine  the  Phyfi^ 
cian,  viz.  Becaufe  the  Jews  at  that  Time 
were  arrived  to  the  Height  of  Impiety,  and  bev 
caufe  they  wrere  exceedingly  addicted  to  Magick 
Arts  *f\  There  appears  to  be  fome  Force  in  this 
laft  Reafon  efpecially.  That  they  were  really 
fo   addicted  is  clear,    from  St.  Luke's  Account 

*  Tillotforis  Sermons,  laft  Edition,    1735.    Vol.  III.   p  488. 
f  Vide  Barthtline  de  Morb.  Bib/ids,  quoted  in  Bi/hop  Smalbroke^ 
Vindicate  V.  I.  p.343.  and  Light/.  Vol.  II.  p.  175. 

of 


(   n8  ) 

of  the  Value  of  the  Books,  relating  to  fuch  cu~ 
rious  Arts,  which  were  burnt  at  Ephefus  only, 
by  the  Jews,  who  believed.  Atts  xix.  18.  &c. 
And,  nothing  is  eafier  to  fuppofe,  than  that 
Magic,  as  it  is  really  applying  to  the  Devil  for 
Aid,  and  calling  him  to  ufe  his  Power,  might 
be  fuffered  by  God  Almighty  to  have  this 
dreadful  Effect. 

A  late  very  good  Writer  *  has  affigned  ano^ 
ther  Anfwer,  which  he  thinks  plain  and  eafy. 
That  then  only  were  thofe  Beings  known 
and  heard  of,  becaufe  then  only  thofe  Pow- 
ers were  exercifed,  which  alone  were  able  to 
bring  their  Doings  kto  Light.     The  Difeafes 


<c 
cc 
cc 

cc 

"  werevifiblej   but  the  Caufe  of  them  wasun- 
<c  known;  till  He,  who  wrote  the  Cure,  made 

cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 
cc 


it  evident  by  His  Power  what  it  was.  And 
poflibly  fhould  the  fame  Power  again  revive, 
we  might  again  hear  of  juft  the  fame  Effects 
of  it.  We  know  little  byourReafon,  or  our 
Senfes,  of  the  Being  of  evil  Spirits,  or  of  their 
Power,  and  therefore  are  apt  to  make  no 
reckoning  of  them  in  confidering  the  poffible 
<c  Caufes  of  thofe  Effects,  which  we  daily  fee 
<c  before  us  ;  but  fhould  any  one  fay,  that  even 
"  now  a  great  many  of  thofe  Difeafes,  which 
<c  afflict  Mankind,  are  caufed  by  evil  Spirits  ; 
<c  fome  modern  Writers  would  find  much 
"  more  ufe  of  their  Talent  for  Ridicule,  than 
<c  of  their  Reafon  and  Understanding  in  con- 


*  Difcourfe  of  our  Saviour's  miraculous  Power  of  Healing,  &c. 
1730.  p.  24. 


fating 


cc 
cc 
a 
cc 
<c 
«c 


(  119  ) 

"  fating  him."  According  to  this  Account, 
Poffeffions  were  never  peculiar  to  any  Age. 
There  may  be  many  fuch  at  this  Day.  And, 
if  it  be  thought  mere  Suppofition  and  Conjediare 
only,  ftill  fuch  is  a  fufficient  reply  to  a  mere  Dif- 
cidty.  Nor  can  this  be  fupported,  without 
(hewing  the  Impoflibility  and  Falfenefs  of  it. 

The  learned  Prelate \  fo  often  mentioned  be- 
fore, has  helped  us  to  another  Solution,  which 
is,  "  That  the  Devil  might  have  been  permitted 
by  God  to  exert  himfelf  in  an  unufual  man- 
ner, at  and  after  Jesus's  Advent,  in  order  to 
be  more  fignally  triumphed  over  by  the  Savi- 
our of  the  World,  and  thofe  that  were  de- 
legated by  Him  to  convert  Mankind  to  His 
Religion  *."  And,  what  is  there  in  this, 
but  what  is  very  probable,  and  very  confiftent 
with  our  Notions  of  God  ?  Can  we  conceive  a 
wifer  End  of  His  acting,  than  the  Advancement 
of  His  own  Glory,  in  order  to  the  Salvation  of 
Mankind  ?  Or  can  we  conceive  any  more 
likely  way  of  promoting  this,  than  fuch  a  fignal 
feniible  Victory  over  his  grand  Enemies,  the 
Powers  of  Darkneis  ?  Could  there  be  a  more 
clear  and  expreffive  Reprefentation  of  that 
great  and  final  Conqueft,  which  he  came  to 
finifh  ?  Or,  could  there  be  a  more  certain  and 
convincing  Argument,  to  turn  the  Nations  of 
the  World  from  their  idolatrous  Worfhip  to 
Him,  then  to  {hew  them,  in  a  vifible  manner, 
that  the  Beings  they  adored  were,  by  their  own 

*  Vindication,  &c.  Vol  I.  p.  34^.     Y id.  Ti//otfinr ubi/upra. 

Con- 


(    120    ) 

Confeffion,   Devils,  fubject  to  His  Name,  and 
.caft  out  by  the  Power  of  it  ? 

None  of  theie  Suppolitions  are  once  men- 
tioned by  the  Enquirer;  though  I  can't  but 
think,  that,  both  in  regard  to  the  Authority  of 
their  refpective  Authors,  and  their  real  intrinfick 
Weight,  they  all  deferved  to  have  been  well 
confidered.  Sure  I  am,  that  the  Difficulties, 
with  which  his  Scheme  is  clogged  (I  need  not 
repeat  them)  are  not  capable  of  fuch  plain  and 
rational  Solutions. 

But  really  we  are  not  obliged  to  give  An- 
fwers  to  fuch  Queftions  as  this  Gentleman  here 
asks,  nor  fhould  it  be  the  leaft  Concern,  if  we 
could  not  give  any.  For  fhould  it  be  granted, 
that  the  whole  of  the  Difficulty  he  objects,  re- 
mains, and  that  no  Anfwer  hitherto  given, 
could  be  admitted  as  fatisfactory  ;  yet,  what  is 
the  Confequence  ?  That  the  Go/pel  fhould  be 
rejected  ?  He  does  not  pufh  the  Matter  fo  far ; 
though  Wooljion  did.  And  furely,  a  Book  of 
fuch  Authority  is  not  prefently  to  be  given  up, 
merely,  becaufe  we  may  not  be  able  to  anfwer 
every  Doubt,  which  may  arife  about  any  Part 
of  it.  The  Difficulties  of  Scripture  are  acknow- 
ledged by  the  very  beft  Friends  of  it,  by  an  in- 
fpired  Writer  Himfelf.  But  none  amount  to 
the  leaft  charge  of  Contradidion,  Impiety,  or 

Untruth Or,   are  we,  on  this  Account,   to 

disapprove  and  reject  the  literal  Sen fe  of  the  many 
Paflages  confidered  ?  But  firft,  it  would  be  ad- 
vifeable  to  make  fure  of  another  Senfe  more 

i  eafy 


(    121    ) 

eafy  and  clear.  This  is  far  from  being  the 
Cafe  of  the  Suppofition  I  have  examined.  We 
have  feen,  that  it  has  greater  Difficulties  at- 
tending it,  gives  room  for  more  Cavil  and 
Contention,  and  is  fo  far  from  fatisfying  a 
thinking  Man,  that  it  appears  irreconcileable  to 
many  Places  of  Scripture,  and  hardly  confift- 
ent  with  the  Simplicity  and  Plainnefs  of  the 
Go/pel  Style,  in  general.  And  for  ruch  an  In- 
terpretation, the  literal  Senfe,  though  its  Diffi- 
culties were  more  and  greater,  is  by  no  Means 
to  be  left. 

Let  us  view  a  little  clofer,  the  Qnejlions  at 
prefent  afked;  and  we  (hall  find  them  fuch,  as 
it  is  reafonable  to  think,  Men  cannot  anjwer 
perfectly.  Did  they  relate  only  to  common 
Diftempers ;  yet  *,  as  thefe  may  rage  more  at 
one  Time  than  another,  fo  it  would  be  no  Ob- 
jection to  the  Truth  of  them,  if  well  attefted, 
in  any  particular  Age,  that  they  have  not  been 
heard  of  before,  or  fince.  Nor  could  we  fay, 
why  God  fuffered  this  to  be  fo.     But  there  is 

*  In  feveral  hundred  Year?,  the  Small  Pox  never  appeared  in 
|b«  Grecian  Empire.  Tretn&s  Hijlcry  of  Phyf.  V,  i.  p.  274. 
Vid.  Vol.  2.  p.    1  88    et  fecj. 

We  have  alfo  in  the  lame  ingenious  Author  an  Account  of  the 
Sweating  Sicknefs,  "  a  Diitemper,  which  was  never  heard  of  be- 
"  fore  14S3.  in  any  Age  or  Nation  ;  and  which  after  rerurning 
"  now  and  then  for  the  Space  of  fome  Years,  has  ever  fince  en- 
"  tirely  disappeared.     Vol.  2.  p.  332,  &c. 

He  alfo  obierves,  that  "  the  Lues  Venerea  broke  out  as  late 
"  as  the  16th  Century,"  and  contends  at  large,  that  it  was  ;;w, 
and  unknown  both  to  the  Greeks  and  Arabians.  Ibid.  p.  336, 
£sV.    As  like  wife  is  die  Siuri'ey,   p.  387. 

Q^  fame- 


(    122    ) 

ibmething  ftill  more  extraordinary  in  the  In- 
itance  of  Demoiiiacks.  A  Suppofition  of  fome 
Power  more  than  natural  is  here  made.  And 
therefore  the  Difficulty  objected  will  at  laft  come 
to  this,  "  why  God  Almighty  thought  fit  to 
punim  (and  that  Jupematurally)  one  Age, 
or  Generation  of  Men,  in  a  Manner,  in 
which,  lie  neither  before  nor  fmcey  has  pu- 

nifhed  any  others  ?" And    what  Mortal 

can,  without  evident  Prefuppofition,  pretend, 
or  expect,  to  enter  deep  enough  into  the  Coun- 
fels  of  infinite  Wifdom,  to  affign  a  certain  An- 
fwer  to  this  ?  The  Queftion  mould  be  allied 
with  great  Humility  and  Modefty  \  or  other- 
wife  it  will  hardly  be  excufable.  All  we  can 
do,  by  way  of  Reply,  is  to  give  fome  pro- 
bable Account,  a  Reafon  not  inconfiflent  with 
the  Divine  Attributes ',  for  which  Things  may 
have  been  thus  ordered.  But  we  go  much  too 
far,  and  wade  vaftly  out  of  our  Depth,  when 
we  are  poiitive,  that  any  Reafon  mtijl  be  the 

true   one Certainty   therefore,  in   the  Cafe 

before  us,  ought  not  to  be  expected.  If  any  of 
the  Anfwers  already  given  be  probable,  they 
are  Jufficient.  Nor  mould  the  Want  even  of 
this  create  any  Sufpence  or  Uneafinefs  in  the 
Mind.  Such  Difficulties  as  thefe  are  no  un^. 
ufual  Things,  no  formidable  Objections— — 
Nay,  it  appears  to  be  Matter  of  our  real 
Thanks  and  Praifes,  to  find  ourfelves,  defend- 
ing as  we  are  of  the  Divitie  Punijhments,  free 
from  thefe  fevere  one?  felt  formerly  $  to  find 

4  the 


(    123    ) 

the  Power  of  the  Devils,  in  any  Meafixre,  re- 
trained, and  his  mifchievous  Devices  fo  far 
confounded. 

Still  we  are,  in  too  juft  a  Senfe,  fubjecl:  to 
theie.  God  yet  permits  wicked  Spirits  to  af- 
fault  us  :  And  we  are  yet  liable  to  yield,  and 
too  often  give  them  the  Victory.  Let  me 
therefore  conclude  this  EJJay  with  one  ufeful 
practical  Admonition  3  in  which  I  dare  fay,  the 
Gentleman,  I  have  been  oppofing,  will  concur 
with  me.  This  is,  that  we  here  prove  Exor- 
cijis  to  ourfelves  ;  that,  by  Prayer  and  Fajling, 
by  Care  and  Vigilance,  we  prevent  their  ta- 
king Pofleffion  of  our  Minds ;  or,  if  it  be  too 
late  to  do  this,  that  we  ufe  the  fame  Me- 
thods immediately  to  drive  them  thence  :  And 
particularly,  that  we  guard  againft  that  too 
common  Device,  the  leading  Men,  under 
the  Pretence  of  Impartiality,  to  be  partial 
againft  the  Caufe  of  Religion,  and  the  Truth 
of  Scripture ;  and  from  doubting  to  disbelieve 
them,  without  enquiring  into  the  Foundations, 
on  which  they  ftand.  Herein,  if  we  are  not 
wanting  to  ourfelves,  we  mall  afluredly  be  fuo- 
cefsful :  We  need  not  fear  their  Number,  Pow- 
er, or  Delufions  :  We  know,  who  has  pro- 
mifed,  and  this  He  is  able  alfo  to  perform,  that 
if  we  rejift  the  Devil,  he  will  flee  from  us. 


FINIS. 


/•    All  ~  -  "9 

■      ■ 5 

A 

SERMON 

Preach' d  before  the 

University  of  OXFORD. 

- — i , ! — 

Luke  XIII.  31. 
—  Behold \  1  cafi  out  devils  y~ 

T  His  is  a  declaration  of  that  power, 
whereby  our  Savior  compell'd  evil 
fpirits  to  leave  thofe  unhappy  per- 
fbns,  whom  they  had  corporally  poffefs'd.  The 
mifery  of  fuch  poffeflion ,  and  the  bleffing  of 
a  releafe  from  it,  are  recorded  by  the  Evan- 
gelifts  i  fo  often ,  in  fo  plain  and  diftinguifh- 
ing  a  manner,  that  their  meaning  might  feem 
abundantly  fecur'd  from  miftake.  Even  the 
2  bittereft  enmity  againft  Chriftianity,  in  it's 

1  Matt.  IV.  24.  VIII.  1 6, 28  and  foil.  IX.  33.  X.  8.  XII. 
24, 28.  XVII.  15  and  foil,  compar'd  with  Mark  IX.  17  and 
foil,  and  Luke  IX.  39  and  foil.  Mark  1. 25,26334,39.  V-  2. 
and  foil.  VI.  13.  XVI.  9, 17.  Luke  IV.  40, 41.  VIII.  27  and 
foil.  IX.i.  X.  17.  XI.  18  and  foil.  2  Julian,  apud  Cyril. 
1. 6.  p.191.  edit.Spanh.  Even  Lucian,  whiFft  he  indulgeth 
himfelf  in  his  ufual  raillery,  fheweth3  that  the  difpoffeflion 
of  evil  fpirits  was  not  uncommonly  fpoken  of  in  his  time : 

Phiiops.  p.  337.  A  2  more 


4         The  ufual  interpretation 

more  early  ages,  cou'd  not  ftifle  an  acknow- 
ledgment, that  the  fa<5b,  referr'd  to  in  the 
texty  were  really  fuch,  as  they  are  reprefented 
in  the  Gofpels.  Yet,  amongft  perfons,  who 
afliime  the  Chriftian  chara&er,  fome  have  not 
fcrupl'd  to  charge  the  portions  of  facred  hi- 
ftory,  which  thofe  fads  are  the  fubje&s  of, 
with  abfurdity,  or  mere  accommodation  to 
vulgar  error.  Under  the  fgecious  colour  (and 
what  impofture  hath  not  taken  the  fpecious 
colour?)  of  difabufing  credulous  mortals,  rec- 
tifying their  fentiments  and  removing  their 
apprehenfions  of  danger,  where  no  danger  is, 
they  have  attempted,  by  a  peculiar  kind  of 
exorcifm,  to  ejecfl  both  the  poflefTors  and  the 
pofTefs'd  out  of  the  volume  of  Scripture.  In 
purfuit  of  this  benevolent  undertaking,  they 
maintain,  that  the  original  words,  which,  in 
our  tranflation,  x  are  render'd—  devils—  fignify 
( not  any  particular  order  of  fpirits  i  in  power, 
fuperior  to  our  cwn;  or  in  temper,  perpetual- 
ly difpos'd  to  mifchief,  but)  only  the  fouls  of 
men,  which  have  left  the  body,  and  are  kind- 
ly affe&ed  to  them,  who  ftill  are  in  it.  This 
interpretation  leadeth  it's  authors  to  conclude, 
that,  wherever  any  grievous  fufferings  of  men 
are  imputed  to  the  influence  of  fal/uns  or  Sou- 

i  And,  not  improperly,  as  the  fequel  will  evince. 


0/aaimones  <&c.  afjerted.       f 

[aovi*>  the  whole  narration  muft  vanifh  in  fi- 
gure, or  fink  in  condefcenfion  to  popular,  er- 
roneous perfuafion.  And  this  conclufion  is  like- 
wife  fupposd  to  receive  additional  flipper t, 
from  the  inconfiftency  with  divine  attributes, 
which  it's  patrons  pretend  to  difcover,  in  the 
contrary  opinion.  But,  the  falfe  criticifm  and 
falfe  reafoning  of  the  whole  fcheme  will  be 
expos'd,  by  proving, 

First,  That  the  notion,  ufually  annex'd  to 
Scupovts  and  Soupm*,  in  Evangelical  hiftory,  is 
confirm'd  by  the  ufe  of  the  fame  words,  in  the 
writings  of  eminent  heathens: 

Secondly,  That  thofe  paflages  of  the 
Gofpel,  wherein  are  exprefs'd  the  vehement 
malignity  and  power  of  the  Beings  fo  call'd, 
ought  to  be  underftood  in  the  literal,  obvious 
meaning  of  the  expreffions : 

Thirdly,  That  by  the  literal  expofition, 
here  aflerted,  the  juftice,  wifdom  and  goodnefs 
of  God  are  fo  far  from  being  contradi&ed,  as 
to  be  fignally  difplay'd. 

And,  First,  the  notion,  ufually  annex'd  to 
Scupms  and  Swum*,  in  Evangelical  hiftory,  is 

confirm'd 


6         The  ufual  interpretation 

confirm'd  by  the  ufe  of  the  fame  words,  in  the 
writings  of  eminent  heathens. 

I.  In  thefe  writings,  then,  (and  to  theft 
our  adverfaries  appeal )  the  terms,  under  con- 
fideration,  are  fometimes l  equivalent  to  Sw 
or  Q-eiav,  when  the  grammatical  number  is  the 
fame,  and  denote  the  divine  Being,  abfolutely 
fupreme.  But,  2  they  are  molt  commonly  ap- 
ply'd,  in  the  plural  number,  to  reprefent  create 
ed  Beings,  originally  fuperior  to  man.  Be- 
fides  the  paffages,  wherein  this  notion  of  them 
is  dire&ly  requir'd,  many  others  fupply  fuch  me- 
diums, as  clearly  fuggeft  it.  They  are  defcrib'd, 
for  lflftance,  as '  firft  imployd  in  the  creation 
of  men ,  by  divine  appointment ;  and  after- 
wards,  as  guarding  and  conducting  each  in* 

i  Plato  in  Politico  p.  272.  extr.  edit.  Steph.  Hierocl.  p. 
2S0.  edit.Cant.  Diodor.  Sic.  I.3.  p.  143.  ed.  R'hod.  j*£lian. 
V.  H.  1.  6.  c.  12.  adde  J.  Poll.  1. 1.  c.  1.  2  Plato  in  Synv 
pof.  p.  202.  Iamblich.  de  Myft.  iEgypt.  feci:,  1  ji,  c.22,30. 
edit.  Oxon.  Porphyr.  Epift.  ad  Anebon.  p.  1  &  feq.  fere 
fingulis.  Iamblich.  de  Myft.  iEgypt.  feci:.  1.  c.  3,  4,  ?,  7. 
fedt.II.  c.i,2.  Max.Tyrius  di(T.  z6.  p.  271  -4  -6*  edit.Cant, 
Iamblich.  de  vitaPythag.  08.  p. 28.  &  c.xi.  p. 84.  &  C32. 
p.  177.  edit.  Kuft.  Porphyr.  de  vita  Pyth.  p.39.  ed.  Kuft. 
3  Plato  in  Timaeo,  p.  41.  -ibid.  -42-69-71  -7?.  Confer. 
Apul.  p.  58?  &  690.  edit.  Par.  Plato  in  Politic.  p.27i.extr. 
ibid.  274  -5.  Idem  de  Republ.  1. 10.  p.  617-  620.  Idem  in 
Phxdon.p.107.  Porphyr.  Ep.  ad  Aneb.  p.penult.  Hierocl. 

dividual 


^aaimoneS  &c.  ajferted.      7 

dividual  of  the  race,  from  their  ent'rance  into 
this  world)  'til  their  departure  out  of  it. 

The  philofopherS,  who  plac'd  them  in  thefe 
points  of  view,  muft,  in  confequence  of  their 
own  tenets,  fuppofe  thofe  Beings  to  be  indu'd 
with  advantages  of  nature,  which  exalt  them 
highly  above  the  human  fpecies.  And  l  Plato, 
in  particular,  colledteth  from  the  offices  here 
affignd  them,  that,  upon  a  comparifon  with 
men,  they  muft  be  intitul'd  to  the  fame  pre- 
eminence, which  the  fliepherd  is  allow'd  to 
have,  when  compard  with  the  flocks,  over 
which  he  prefides. 

In  regard  to  this  their  fuperior  order  in 
the  creation,  as  well  as  their  important  com- 
miffions ,  they  are  call'd  z  mw&pxjtfns  too  ^yi^ca 

SoUULOyt  3  ^Ist'PnpB'ftiVOVTB^    §101$  Wt  7fUp    a\l§-pQ07TG0V% 

xcq  ayS-pawis  tit  <sp£yi  Sew  —  4  ipfttySs  tea)  ay%\oi 
tuv  ottfJLtyipivTW  cw&paTntf  —  5  &te£iKctx$i,  fo&ntg&M, 

p.  276-8.  Arrian.  in  Epi£t.  l.i.  c.  14.  Dionyf.  Hal.  A.  R. 
1. 2.  c.  63.  edit.  Oxon.  Menand.  apud  Clem.  Alex.  Strom. 
lib.  ^.  p.  717.  edit.  Oxon.  1  Plato  de  leg.  lib.  4.  p.  713. 
2  Plato  in  Politico,  p.272  extr.  3  Plato  in  Symp.  p.202. 
Porphyr.  de  abftin.  6cc.  1.2.  fed. 38.  edit.  Cant.  4  Pla- 
to in  Epinom.  p.  984  6c  feq.  Plutarch.  T.  2.  p.  361.  edit. 
Parif.  —  p.  416.  fere  extr.  —  p.  417.  Hierocl.  in  aur.carm. 
p«  240.  edit.  Cant.     5  Iamblich.  de  myft.  iEgypt.  fed:.  1. 


tirm? 


8         The  ufual  interpretation 

XJoOlS   TB    (C    7»lf  C*  T&>  KSFfAU)   7TUC1V  c/fttSe&f&TC? ,    HyHOl 

Thefe  characters  are  too  fublime,  to  be 
drawn  for  human  ghofts.  And,  tho*  they  are 
ftaind  with  mixtures  of  error;  yet,  upon  ap- 
plication of  fuch  corre&ives,  as  may  be  fairly 
admitted,  they  teftify  a  prevailing  perfuafion 
of  the  exiftence  and  minifterial  office  of  gooci 
angels.  If  they  were  not,  indeed,  copy'd  from 
fome  part  of  the  facred  originals ;  yet,  in  a 
comparative  view  of  them  and  the  r  texts  fub- 
join'd,  feveral  traces  of  likenefs  will  be  offer  d 
to  an  attentive  mind. 

Whenever,  then,  philofophers  have  fo  far 
conformed  2  to  poetic  language,  as  to  give  the 
name  Jaipom  to  the  ghofts  of  men  5  it  cannot 

c.  13,2.0.  6c  fed.  III.  c.i 5.  feci.  VI.  c.  3,  6.  Confer.  Diog. 
Laert.  1.  3.  fegm.79.  1  Pfal.  XXXIV.  7.  XCI.  11,12. 
CIII.20.  CIV. 4.  Dan.  X.  13.  compare  Tobir  XII.  12  and 
foil.  Matt.  XVIII.  10.  Luke  I.  19,26  and  foil.  XVI.  22. 
A&.  X.  3.  Heb.  I.  7, 14.  Rev.  V.  6.  VIII.  3,  4.  XVII.  1. 
%  Vide  Platon.'de  Rep.  1.  2.  p.377.  In  Hierocl.  p.  38.  the 
ghofts  of  men,  *a*9-«$s  >$  ifirj  ngriM&titiq,  are  calPd  }aipms% 
m  htipntt  tea}  bnrwfwttc :  and  are  immediately  afterwards  di- 
ftinguiih'd  from  the  01  <J>tsei  AAIMONES. 

from 


0/AAIMONE2  <&c.  afferted.      9 

From  hence  be  juftly  collected,  that  they  dit 
bwrid  the  natural  difference  between  thofe 
Beings.  Rather  ftiou'd  it  be  prefum'd,  in  or- 
der to  maintain  confiftency  in  their  fentiments, 
that  they  thought  the  fduls  of  the  good,  upoii 
departure  from  the  body,  *  were  advanc'd  to 
fuch  a  nearnefs  of  fimilitude  with  the  molt 
Excellent  creatures,  as  might  juftify  a  commu- 
nity of  their  names.  Thro1  this  cdflftru<5tioii 
of  their  words,  they  are  reconcil'd  to  them- 
felves ;  and  their  conceptions  of  things  fpiri- 
tual  become,  in  fome  meafure,  confonailt  to 
the  clearer  difcdveries  of  revelation.  For,  by 
the  Gofpel  we  are  plainly  taught,  that  the 
pious  will  be  blefs'd  with  fo  happy  %  a  change, 
upon  the  fecond  union  of  their  conftituent 
parts,  as  to  be  thereby  render'd  *  equal  to  the 
angels. 

Thus  far  truth  and  tradition  confpire,  in 
regard  to  the  favorable  notion,  annex'd  to  Sou- 
pom  and  Scupivion 

1  Vide Platon.  Cratyl.  p.398.  &  Max.  Tyr.  p.282.  Con- 
fer. Procl.  in  Plat.  Theolog.  p.  64.  edit.  Hamb.  6c  Plu- 
tarch, de  orac.  def.  p.  415".  Iamblich.  de  myft.  JEgypt* 
Sect.  II.  c.2.  In  Hierbcles  they  are  call'd  IZAITEAOI  and 
Jsoaaimones— p.4o.  2 1C0f.XV.51  and  foil.  3  Luke 
XX.3d.   MarkXILi?. 

B  But, 


I  o      The  ujual  interpretation 

But,  this  is  not  the  notion,  which  thoft 
terms  mod  frequently  fignify.  For,  the  more 
contemplative  heathens,  allowing  the  '  eflen- 
tial  identity  of  the  Beings  fo  call'd,  have  con- 
fider  d  them  alfo  as  accidentally  diftinguifh'd, 
by  contrary  qualities.  And,  as  their  writings 
import  fome  notices  of  the  holy  angels  -y  fo  do 
they  difcover  an  equal  degree  of  knowledge 
in  reference  to  the  deprav'd.  Thefe  are  de- 
fcrib'd  therein,  z  as  malevolent  and  maleficent 
Beings;  delighting  (or  feeming,  at  leaft,  de- 
lighted) in  the  indulgence  of  cruel  inclina- 
tions ;  in  promoting  wickednefs,  impoftureand 
mifery  amongft  men. 

'  From  the  irreconcileable  repugnancy  be- 
tween moral  goodnefs  and  a  conftant  difpofi- 
tion  to  fraud  and  wrong,  *  reafon  taught  phi- 

i  Plutarch,  de  If.  &  Ofir.  p.  360.  Idem  de  orac.  def.  p. 
417.  Iamblich.  de  myft.  ./Egypt.  Seel:.  II.  c.  7.  Porphyr.  de 
abft.  &c.  1.2.  feci. 38.  Confer.  Chalcid.  in  Plat.Tim.  p. 319. 
&  feq.  edit.  Fabr.  2  Plutarch. T.2.  p. 361.  Porph.  epift.  ad 
Aneb.  p.  ?.  by  i*>'&  «5t*7jjA«  <pv<n*i  &c  and  0  ayvgw,  feems 
to  reprefent  thefe,  and  their  chief:  whom,  at  the  con- 
clufion  of  the  fame  epiftle,  he  diftinguifheth  from  the 
€C}a%  Xaijww,  and  calleth  0  ?rA«>@^.  Iamblich.  de  myft.  JE- 
gypt.  fed.III.  c.31.  SedtIV.c.7.  Sed.X.c.7.  3  Plato 
de  Repub.  1. 2.  p.  3 79  &  feq.  Iamblich.  de  myft.  -/Egypt, 
fedti  IV.  c.  6.  Hierocl.  p«>83- 

lofopher« 


of  aaimones  &c.  afferted.     1 1 

lofophers  to  infer,  that  this  difpofition  cannot 
be  afcrib'd  to  the  Deity.     When  the  l  fame 
authors,  therefor,  make  the  molt  pernicious 
delufions,  the  favorite  imployment  of  Seupovisz 
when  they  pronounce  them  the  inventors  and 
incouragers  of  fuch  practices,  as  are  moft  in- 
jurious both  to  individuals  and  to  communi- 
ties of  men ;  they  muft,  by  neceflary  confe- 
quence  from  their  own  reafoning  about  the 
Deity,  be  prefum'd  to  look  upon  $cupam9  as 
extremely  evil.    And  2  Plutarch  fuppofeth,  that 
feveral  inquifitive  heathens  (whom  he  citeth 
as  confentient  with  Plato  herein)  were  juftly 
led  to  this  notion  of  thofe  Beings,  by  various 
occurrences  in  the  natural  and  moral  world. 
Thefe  occurrences  exhibited  the  tokens  of  fuch 
power,  as  far  exceeded  human  nature ;  and  of 
fuch  wickednefs,  as  appear'd  directly  oppofite 

i  Plato  apud  Plutarch.  T.  z.  p.36^1.  Idem  in  Phsedro  p. 
240.  Confer,  idem  de  Repub.  1.x.  p.  364.  6c  p. 378  —381—  2. 
Where,  indeed,  he  ufeth  the  word  &e«,  yet  ^alpsm^  'tis 
probable,  are  to  be  underftood  by  it.     For,  thus  Proclus 

in  Platon.  Theol.  p.64  —  ««k«  *«/  rxs  AAIMONAS,  cl  jgsr'a^'a* 
JW«f«  ra»  ©EQN  eioi  —  0EOY2  atsvPipfim  (fcil.  Plato)  TnT&ctyji. 
Plutarch.  «fe<  ilfyp.  p-474«  6c  de  orac.  def.  p.417,419.  Por- 
phyr.  de  abft.  &c.  1.  2.  feci.  40,  41, 58.  Iamblich.  de  myft. 
iEgypt.  feci:.  III.  c,  13, 16,  31.  Sect.  IV.  c.  7, 13.  Liban. 
decl.  43.  p.  906.  edit.  Morel.  2  Plutarch.  T.  2.  p.  360.  6c 
feq.  —  6c  loc.  fupra  modo  eit.  Confer.  Salluft.  Phil  of.  c.12. 
edit.  Amftel. 

B  2  to 


iz      The  ufual  interpretation 

to  the  divine.  In  fearch  of  fatisfa&ion  about 
them,  '  the  theorifts,  'tis  not  improbable,  had 
recourfe  to  the  remains  of  antient  tradition ; 
and  by  colle&ing  it's  fcatter'd  raies,  they  were 
at  length  indued  to  conceive  ideas  of  that 
middle  fort  of  Beings,  which  had  much  more 
ability  than  man,  to  execute  purpofes  intire- 
Jy  unworthy  of  God.  Theft  Beings  (befides 
the  defcription  of  them  already  given )  are  re- 
markably chara&eriz'd,  in  the  fame  authors^ 
f  as  exiles  from  heaven  and  from  the  divine 
prefence  —  as  ivand'ring  thro*  the  air,  about 
fea  and  land ;  and  *  ftriving  with  fuch  affiduity 
#nd  fiercenefs,  as  giveth  them  a  refemblance  of 
favage  animals,  to  delude  men  int<5  ruin,  and 
actually  making  fbme  of  the  fpecies  their  prey, 

I  Plutarch,  de  orac.  defe&u,  p.  41  y,  416,  417.  Confer; 
Plato  de  Repub.  1. 1-  p.  379  6c  feq.  z  Plutarch.  T.i.  p. 
830.  extr.  &  orac  det.  p.418  extr.  &419.  —  &  ibid,  p.361. 
ZuxthttXtf  H  »£  <#**?  <p*<n  JlHyetj  rvs  baipsitct  m  \%ttn£tfun  kuj  7rX%fi- 

Atyw  V-  y*P  *&  P*10'  *****  "  nbmtt  (Scribe  Trirmft) 
TIovtos  $"ts  fc9»»«$  *&*f  etmirrvat,  ycutt  VieiwSii  (Lege  is  myU\ 

*  Proclus  in  Hefiod.  p.  4?.  edit.  Plantin.  0rph.  21%*  ads 
Muo-.v.^i.  Orac. Chald.XI.  v.gi^.edit.  Cler.  Iamblich.de 
inyft.  ./Egypt.  feci:.  II.  c.  7.  Confer.  Pfell.  p.  45.  edit.  Par. 
Plutarch,  de  orac.  def.  p.41 7,418,410.  Iamblich.  de  myft, 
jEgypt.  feet.  III.  c.13,31.  Sallufl.  Philof.  c.14. 

In 


^Aaimones  &c.  afferted.    13 

In  thefe  images  likewife,  as  well  as  in  thofe 
of  Saq&Ms  confider'd  above,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  difcern  that  truth  delineated  in  fainter  co- 
lours, which  the  infpired  writers  have  drawn 
in  the  ftrongeft.  In  their  ftile,  'tis  well  known, 
who  !  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air  is ;  and 
who  2  the  n&pojc&ti?gK}  that  '  kept  not  their  firft 
ejiatey  but  fell  from  heaven.  And  the  fame 
fpirit,  of  which  the  *  ferpent  and  dragon  are 
fometimes  made  emblems,  is  alfb  defcrib'd 
by  them,  as  *  going  to  and  fro  in  the  earth  ; 
6  walking  about ,  as  a  roaring  liony  feeking  whom 
he  may  devour^  7  and  exercifing  the  avenging 
juftice  of  God  on  the  wicked. 

Hence  it  appeareth,  that  profane  authors 
do  not  contradict,  but  confirm,  the  ufe  of 
Soupwis  or  Scupovictt  in  the  facred.  The  In- 
quirer, then,  who  pretends  to  build  his  inter- 
pretation of  thofe  words,  upon  the  monu- 
ments of  the  former,  cannot  evade  the  force 
of  an  evidence,  which  he  himfelf  hath  inter- 
efted  in  the  caufe.  And  tho*  they  have,  con- 
feffedly,  fometimes  born  a  favorable  fignifica- 

i  Eph.  II.  2.  i  —VI.  12.  sJudetf.  4.  Rev.  XII.  9, 
14.  -XX.  2.  5  Job  II.  2.  6  1  Pet.  V.  8.  7  1  Sam. 
XVI.  14,23.    iCor.V.  ?.    1  Tim.  1. 20. 

tioflj 


I4<      The  ufual  interpretation 

tion,  in  pagan  antiquity  -y  yet,  this  fupplyeth 
not  any  valid  obje&ion  to  the  eftablifhment 
of  a  contrary  fenfe  thereof,  in  holy  Scripture. 
Words,  'tis  obvious  to  obferve,  have  not  un- 
commonly pafs'd  from  a  general  and  indifcri- 
minate,  to  a  peculiar  and  diftinguifliing,  re- 
prefentation  of  things.  Thus  ayfsAc/,  a  name 
fometime  promifcuoufly  given  to  the  higheft 
rank  of  creatures,  hath  been  more  eminently 
apply'd  to  them,  who  perfever'd  in  their  pri- 
mitive ftation.  And,  if  an  example  of  hea- 
then authority  may  be  more  acceptable  to  the 
Inquirer,  it  will  be  fufficient,  without  accu- 
mulating more,  to  recommend  iS&triGh  or  **- 
(pipit  to  his  confideration.  If  no  perfon  of 
letters  can  difpute  a  change  in  the  ufe  of  thefe 
terms,  from  a  morally  indifferent,  to  a  bad 
meaning;  why  fhou'd  it  feem  incredible  or  im- 
proper, that  SalfjMv  or  ieuphtor*  which  had 
been  the  common  appellation  of  created  intel- 
ligences, fhou'd  at  length  be  appropriated  to 
the  leading  rebels  againft  our  Creator?  And, 
as  the  name  — ^tvY-conveyeth  the  fame  idea, 
in  our  tranflation  ■  the  tranflation  is  juft,  and 
the  reje<5tion  of  it  owing  to  ignorance,  fafti- 
dious  oppofition  to  cuftom,  affedtation  of  un- 
ufual  accuracy,  or  Sadducean  disbelief. 

Thus 


of  aaimoneS  &c.  ajferted.    i  j 

Thus  far  it  feem'd  expedient  to  comply  with 
the  Inquirer's  method  of  attempting  to  fup- 
port  his  opinion  j  and  to  evince  the  agree- 
ment between  Evangelical  and  external  wri- 
ters, in  the  ufe  of  the  words  difcufs'd. 

The  plain  tenor  of  holy  writ,  indeed,  fhou'd 
fuperfede  the  neceffity  of  anxious  refearches  af- 
ter fuch  agreement,  amongft  real  Chriftians. 
But,  when  the  perverfe,  who  are  ever  inventing, 
or  repeating,  occafions  of  doubt  and  diffatif- 
faction,  publifli  their  fancy'd  difcoveries,  with 
an  air  of  triumph  and  uncommon  learning ; 
it  may  be  proper  to  draw  thofe  inftruments 
out  of  their  hands,  which  they  ufe  unskilfully 
or  unfairly  5  and  to  fhew,  that  a  refolute  ad- 
mirer of  innovation  will  rather  torture  even 
the  parties,  which  he  fummons  to  his  defence, 
than  fuffer  them  to  be  uningagd  in  his  con- 
reft  with  Scripture. 

And,  when  the  Inquirer  fhall  think  fit  ( as 
he  feems  to  threaten)  to  try  his  caufe  by  the 
teftimony  of  ecclefiaftical  antiquity,  he  may 
expect  to  find  it  prov'd,  that  he  hath  only 
chang'd  the  feat  of  the  debate,  without  chang- 
ing his  fuccefs. 

But, 


1 6      The  ufual  interpretation 

But,  the  foundation  of  his  cavils  having 
been  deftroy'd,  by  afcertaining  the  idea  be- 
longing to  the  words,  which  he  hath  mifinter- 
preted;  a  way  is  open'd  to  the  more  unexcep- 
tionable admiffion  of  this  Second  proposi- 
tion, 

That  the  paflages  of  Gofpel-hiftory,  where- 
in great  malignity  and  great  power  over  hu- 
man bodies  are  attributed  to  devils,  ( for,  fb 
they  may  now  be  calld )  ought  to  be  literally 
underftood. 

II.  Befides  the  fupport,  which  this  conclu- 
fion  receiveth  from  the  preceding  obferva- 
tions,  afient  to  it  is  ftill  more  ftrongly  de- 
manded, by  the  tenor  of  the  whole  narration 
concerning  the  poffefs'd.  When  we  read,  (not 
to  mention  other  remarkable  circumftances ) 
1  that  evil  fpirits,  which  had  enter'd  into  men, 
were  caft  out  —  that  they  talk'd  with  Chrift  — 
acknowledg'd  His  divine  million  —  propos'd  re- 
quefts  to  Him ;  and  return'd  anfwers  to  quet 
tions  propos'd;  can  it  be  thought,  with  any 
appearance  of  truth,  that  the  Evangelifts  in- 

i  See  the  places  cited  at  the  beginning* 

tended 


of  aaimones  &c.  averted.    17 

tended  herein,  only  to  defcribe  the  fymptoms 
and  effects  of  fbme  natural  diforders?  Can 
local  motion,  fpeech,  reafon,  choice,  difcern- 
nient  more  than  human,  be  affign'd,  in  a  plain 
relation  of  fa&s,  without  the  utmoft  abfurdi- 
ty,  to  qualities ;  where  no  intimation  is  given 
by  the  hiftorian,  that  he  defigns  to  recede 
from  the  known  ,  receiv'd  fignification  of 
words?  Or,  is  it  to  be  imagin'd,  confidently 
with  foundnefs  of  mind,  that  ■  tho'  madneft 
cou  d  not,  yet  the  mad  might,  know  the  perfon 
of  Chrift,  merely  by  His  fame  ?  If  the  mad 
can  be  fuppos'd  to  have  injoy'd  intervals,  fre- 
quent and  lucid  enough,  for  the  attainment 
of  fuch  wonderful  knowledg;  yet,  can  it  alfp 
be  fuppos'd,  that  he  gave  proofs  of  his  mad- 
nefs  and  of  his  knowledg,  in  the  fame  in- 
ftant?  The  Inquirer,  indeed,  liberally 2  gran t- 
eth  him  fagacity  enough  to  difcern  the  fuper- 
eminence  of  Chrift,  upon  the  firft  view;  and, 
by  confequence,  to  perceive,  that  He  was  both 
able  and  willing  to  cure  him.  Do'th  he  not, 
then,  permit  the  diftrefs'd,  to  imbrace  this 
fair  opportunity  of  being  heal'd  ?  No  t?  fb 
capricious  is  this  writers  humor,  that  he  recalls 
his  former  liberality,  and  allows  his  moft  fa- 

1  See  Enquiry  p.  67  —  73.    Luke  IV.  33*34*  VIII.  28. 
Mark  I.i3~i6.V.6,7.  Matt.VIII.29.    2  See  Enq.  loc.  cit. 

C  gacious 


1 8      The  ufual  interpretation 

gacious  patient  to  betray  fuch  a  degree  of 
frenzy,  in  that  very  jun&ure,  as  to  exprefs 
horror,  at  the  fight  of  an  acknowledge!  de- 
liverer, and  a  defire  of  not  feeling  the  bene- 
ficial influence  of  His  power.  So  ftrong  a  pro- 
penfity  to  paradox  prevails,  we  find,  in  fome 
writers,  that  if  they  fail  of  gaining  it  a  fuit- 
able  indulgence  in  the  facred  writings,  they 
will,  at  leaft,  indulge  it  in  their  own. 

The  fame  perfbn,  'tis  true,  who,  in  «  one 
place  of  Scripture,  is  defcrib'd  in  a  ftate  of  ob- 
feflion ;  2  in  another,  is  call'd  a  lunatic.  But, 
is  it  regularly  concluded  from  hence,  that  the 
grievance,  reprefented  in  thefe  two  forms  of 
fpeech,  was  fingle,  and  naturally  incidental  to 
the  fuffering  party  ?  Or,  may  it  not  be  more 
juftly  affirm'd,  in  virtue  and  in  favour  of  both 
accounts,  that  both  are  ftridtly  true  —  that  the 
cafe  was  complicated ;  and  that  an  evil  fpirit 
had  turn  d  a  diftemper'd  habit  of  body  into  an 
occafion  of  exercifing  his  cruelty  in  it  ?  This 
folution  is  even  pointed  out  by  the  parent, 
who  intreated  our  Savior  to  relieve  his  fon. 
For,  according  to  his  reprefentation  of  the  dif- 
trefs,  the  young  man  was  not  only  3  a?A»jwa£o- 

i  Mark  IX.  17.  compare  Luke  IX.  38,  39.      2    Matt. 
XVII.  i?.     3  Matt,  loco  cit. 


^Taaimones  &c.  averted.    19 

/.$«©*,  but  alfo  xdx&s  7nt%cov  —  labouring,  at 
once,  under  the  difeafe  and  the  torments  of 
the  devil. 

When,  again,  we  find  ~  l  Acupoviov  £#«,  £  \icar 
vztzcj,  —  it  is  z  a  miftake  to  fancy,  that  the  lat- 
ter verb  is  only  exegetical  of  the  former  phrafe. 
It  is  rather  fubjoin'd,  to  exprefs  an  additional 
malady,  which  refulted  from  the  other  difafter, 
as  it's  immediate  caufe. 

Thefe  pafTages,  then,  which  have  been 
thought  moft  favorable  to  the  Inquirer's  hy- 
pothec's, being  expounded  with  clearnefs  and 
confiftency,  according  to  the  cuftomary  import 
of  words ;  with  what  colour  of  reafon  can  a 
foreign  and  figurative  fenfe  be  obtruded  either 
on  them,  or  other  portions  of  the  Gofpel, 
wherein  fimilar  fad:s  are  related  ? 

Judgment  and  integrity  will  then,  indeed, 
induce  an  interpreter  to  depart  from  the  lite- 
ral, obvious  meaning  of  language,  when  the 
nature  of  the  fubjed:  demandeth  the  depar- 
ture —  when  Scripture  fuggefteth,  at  leaft,  elf- 
where,  fome  reafon  for  the  change  j  and  when, 
.without  it,   a  manifeft  contradi&ion  to  the 

1  Joh,  X.  20.    a  Mede,  difc.  VI.  p.  19. 

C  2  plain- 


io       The  ufual  interpretation 

plaineft  truths  muft  unavoidably  infue.  But, 
what  plea  can  be  offer'd  in  behalf  of  expofi- 
tors,  who  will  rather  bid  defiance,  than  pay 
due  obedience,  to  thefe  reftridtions ;  and  vio- 
late the  rules  of  avoiding  abfurdity,  even  for 
the  fake  of  maintaining  it  ? 

By  fiich  licence,  the  ambiguity  of  Satan  s 
oracles  may  be  introduce!  into  the  lively  ora- 
cles of  God  ;  and  thefe,  inftead  of  being  ufe- 
ful  for  doblrin  and  inJlruBion  in  righteoufnefsy 
may  be  perverted  to  the  promotion  of  confu- 
fion  and  every  evil  work.  For,  what  is  fo  fa* 
cred,  or  fo  important,  in  the  fyftem  of  Chrif- 
tian  dodtrines,  as  not  to  be  thereby  reducible 
to  the  level  of  indifferent  things,  or  even  to 
the  catalogue  of  popular  miftakes  > 

If,  for  inftance,  l  wiv^a,  axafapm  may  be 
transferr'd  to  the  fignification  of  a  bodily,  na- 
tural diforder  •  **£jutf  $$*&  may  ceafe  to  repre- 
fent  a  Divine  Perfon.  If  mediatorial  and  pro- 
pitiatory a6ts  are  afcrib'd  to  a  Savior  of  man- 
kind ;  yet,  thro'  the  Inquirers  dexterity,  the 
language,  expreffive  of  tho'fe  adts  and  that  of- 
fice, may  be  (and  hath  actually  been)  refolv'd 
into  mere  conformity  to  the  pradtices  and  fen« 

i  Matt.  X.i.  &  alibi. 

timents 


of  aaimoneS  &c.  ajferted.     2  t 

timents  of  idolatrous  nations ;  amongft  whom 
were  Saviors,  facrifices,  and  mediators,  many. 

If,  again,  an  Evangelift  declareth  the  divine 
and  human  nature  of  Chrift,  in  faying,  that 
the  Word  was  made  flejh-,  an  Artemonian  eludes 
the  proof  by  replying,  that  Word  denoteth, 
in  the  original,  only  reafon  or  fpeech;  and 
flejh,  not  the  fubftance,  but  the  accidents,  or 
infirmities,  of  human  nature.  And,  in  reality, 
if  the  works  of  the  prince  of  this  world  may  be 
judg'd  to  reft  upon  no  better  foundation,  than 
vulgar  error;  thofe  alfo,  by  which  the  Prince 
of peace ,  and  Redeemer  of  the  world  is  diftin- 
gaifh'd,  may,  with  equal  eafe,  be  added  to  the 
number  of  imaginary  characters.  And,  that 
fuch  are  the  confequences  of  wantonly  defert- 
ing  the  common  purport  of  language,  is  too 
clearly  provd  by  the  wild,  blafphemous  reve- 
ries of  the  moft  antient  and  later  heretics. 

If,  then,  the  ufual  interpretation  of  Evan- 
gelical hiftory,  concerning  the  malignity  and 
power  of  devils,  be  not  only  not  oppos'd,  but 
even  confirm'd,  by  external  writers  —  if  a  ratio- 
nal, confident  fenfe  may  be  deduc'd  from  the 
ordinary  acceptation  of  the  original  words  —  if 
the  unneceflary  application  of  an  alkfiye,  figu- 
rative 


ax      The  ufttal  interpretation 

rative  conftru&ion  hath  been  inftrumental  in 
impofing  the  moft  monftrous  and  deteftable 
conceits  upon  writings,  dictated  by  the  Spirit 
of  God  -  if  thefe  aflumptions  are  all,  as  they 
have  all  been  prov'd  to  be,  fo  many  truths; 
then,  the  laws  of  found  judgment  and  found 
reafoning  will  evidently  perfuade  this  conclu- 
iion  -  That  the  pafiages,  wherein  the  cafe  of 
demoniacs  is  defcrib'd,  ought  to  be  underftood 
according  to  the  literal,  obvious  meaning  of 
the  expreffions. 

A  pious  concern,  indeed,  for  the  honour  of 
the  Deity,  and  a  defign  to  correct  an  opinion, 
which  is  deem'd  injurious  to  it,  have  been  made 
the  pretence  for  giving  figure,  in  this  cafe,  a 
preference  to  the  letter.  But,  allowing  the 
patrons  of  figure  the  whole  benefit  of  their 
piety,  in  the  intention  of  their  fchemes  $  yet, 
the  neceflity  of  forming  and  propofing  them 
will  totally  difappear,  when  it  is  fliewn, 

Thirdly,  That  by  the  interpretation,  here 
alfet'ted,  the  juftice,  wifdom  and  goodnefs  of 
God  are  fo  far  from  being  contradicted,  as  to 
be  fignally  difplay'd. 

III.  Can,  then,  the  juftice  of  God  be  re- 
concile 


(^aaimones  &c.  ajjerted.     23 

concil'd  with  a  permiffion,  that  Beings,  whofe 
nature  is  fo  contrary  to  His  own,  fhou'd  exer- 
cife  a  power  fo  extenfive,  and  fo  hurtful  to 
the  reft  of  His  creatures  ?  Or,  do'th  not  this 
divine  attribute  lead  us  rather  to  prefume,  that 
they  are  reftraind  from  executing  their  evil 
purpofes;  and  condemn  d  to  fuffer,  inftead  of 
caufing,  mifery  ?  The  difficulties,  which  thefe 
inquiries  may  be  fancy'd  to  contain,  are  folv'd 
by  obferving,  that  the  mifapplication  of  power, 
whereby  wicked  fpirits  continually  attempt  the 
promotion  of  natural  as  well  as  moral  evil,  is 
not  agreeable,  but  dire&ly  contrary,  to  origi- 
nal inftitution  —  that  this  contrariety  is  the  re- 
fult  of  their  voluntary  depravation  —  that  the 
reftraint  of  a&s,  fuitable  to  this  fupervening 
depravation,  is  not  more  requifite  to  the  idea 
of  tectorial  juftice  in  the  Deity,  than  the  ef- 
fectual prevention  of  criminal  folicitations  and 
criminal  conduit,  which  are  often  mutually  ex- 
perience amongft  men. 

To  thefe  obfervations  it  may  be  added,  that, 
tho'  the  delay  of  punifhment,  completely  ade- 
quate to  guilt,  muft  be  own'd  by  every  mor- 
tal, who  is  not  an  intire  ftranger  to  himfelf, 
to  be  confident  with  divine  juftice ;  yet,  the 
damnation  of  the  rebellious  fpirits  even  now  jlum- 

b'reth 


%±       The  ufual  interpretation 

breth  not ;  feing,  together  with  the  conti- 
nuance of  their  exiftence,  their  torture  is  al- 
io continue!.  For,  belides  a  tormenting  con- 
fcioufnefs  of  abfolute  exclufion  from  the  in- 
valuable bleffings  of  grace  and  glory,  they 
are  likewife  reprefented  as  pofitively  feeling 
the  feverity  of  their  fentence.  l  Chains  ofdark- 
nefs  —  a  gloomy,  painful,  difconfolate  ftate, 
out  of  which  no  expedient  can  extricate  them, 
is  already  their  allotment;  whil'ft  their  com- 
plement of  mifery  is  2  refervd,  'til  the  judg- 
ment of  the  great  day.  After  this  decilive  pe- 
riod, it  feems  intimated,  that  they  fhall  be  in- 
tirely  fwallow'd  up  with  their  own  torments; 
tho',  before  it,  liberty  is  allow'd  them  to  exert 
their  malice  againft  mankind.  In  regard  to 
thefe,  then,  the  great  authors  of  evil,  divine 
juftice  may  feem  plac'd  in  a  fatisfa&ory  light. 
Nor  is  it  lefs  capable  of  vindication,  in  regard 
to  the  calamity  of  the  poffefs'd.  For,  if,  amongft 
thofe  fignal  fufferers,  there  were  fome  noto- 
rious finners,  the  charge  of  injuftice  becometh, 
in  refped:  of  thefe,  immediately  invalid.  Or, 
even  granting  them  a  moral  character,  more 
confonant  to  their  obligations;  yet,  were  they 
ftill  only  parts  of  their  Creator's  works,  which 
might  be  apply'd,  according  to  His  good  plea- 

i  2  Pec.  II.  4.    Judetf,     2  Locis  ck. 

fure, 


0jf  aaimones  &c.  ajjerted.    17 

fure,  in  fubferviency  to  general  advantage. 
Even  ordinary  failings  might  juftify  the  afflic- 
tive treatment,  which  was  only  of  fhort  dura- 
tion :  nor  is  the  interpofition  of  almighty 
power  requir'd  immediately,  in  behalf  of  the 
affiidted.  Tlie  hand  of  the  Lord  is  not  therefor 
Jhortenedy  becaufe  it  is  not  continually  ftretch'd 
forth  againft  every  ad:  or  attempt  of  Satan. 
He  weigheth  all  the  circumftances  of  the  op- 
prefs'd,  and  knoweth  the  proper  feafons  and 
proper  methods  (to  men  ufually  unknown)  of 
refcuing,  aiding  and  rewarding  the  objecfts  of 
His  mercy.  And,  even  during  the  feeming  fuf. 
penfion  of  His  providential  care,  His  confbla- 
tions  may  be  fecretly  difpens'd,  qualify  the  fe- 
verity  of  the  torture  indurd,  and  improve  the 
fufferer's  ability  to  bear  it. 

But,  it  may  be  obferv'd  ftill  more  dire&Iy 
and  appofitely  to  the  prefent  purpofe,That  the 
Jewifh  nation,  when  the  inftances  of  obfeffion 
more  remarkably  occurr'd  amongft  them,  were 
peculiarly  expos'd  to  vengeance.  Their  errors 
were  grofs,  numerous  and  pertinacioufly  re- 
tain'd;  and  their  corruption  of  manners  was 
aggravated  by  impenitence  and  obduracy  of 
heart.  What  ground,  then,  is  here  left  to 
build  complaint  upon,  if  the  great  avenger  of 

D  unre- 


z6      The  ufual  interpretation 

unrelenting  offenders  permitted  the  bodies  of 
fome  to  be  feiz'd  by  Satan,  who  had  before 
refign'd  their  fouls  to  be  led  captive  by  him  ? 

And,  even  in  the  exercife  of  this  chaftife- 
ment,  divine  wifdom  (which  is  accuftom'd  to 
bring  good  out  of  evil )  found  means  of  in- 
creafing  the  luftre  and  amiablenefs  of  the  truth 
and  grace,  which  came  by  Jefus  Chrift.  For, 
the  prophecy,  that  He  Jhoud  bruife  the  fer- 
penis  head,  was  then  to  be  publicly  verify'd, 
by  a  correfponding  event.  And,  tho'  it's  full 
and  final  accomplilhment  was  referr'd  to  a  la- 
ter period;  yet  did  the  accornplifhment  com- 
mence, and  gradually  open  it-felf  to  Jew  and 
Gentile,  in  His  repeated  triumphs  over  the 
enemy,  whom  He  had  undertaken  to  fubdue. 
Herein  was  offer' d  to  both  an  opportunity  of 
conviction,  x  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
come-,  whil'ft  they  beheld  the  rulers  of  darhiefs 
conftrain'd  to  confefs,  and  obey,  a  fuperior,  ir- 
refiftible  power.  In  each  eje&ion  of  them  out 
of  human  bodies,  an  abfolute  dominion  over 
them  was  demonftrated,  before  a  multitude  of 
witneffes ;  and,  by  the  fame  means,  was  pro- 
duc'd  a  moft  fenfible  argument  of  Chrift's  pro- 
ceeding fuccefsfully  to  anfwer  the  end  of  His 

i  Luke  XL  10.    Mart.  XII.  28. 

mani- 


MQ 


of  AMMONE2  <&c.  afferted,    17 

manifeftation  in  the  flefh;  whil'ft  He  thus  e- 
vinc'd  His  ability  to  deftroy  the  works  of  the 
devil. 

Thefe  fads,  indeed,  are  therefor  difputed, 
becaufe  they  appear  to  have  been  numerous. 
But,  granting  the  number  of  the  poffefs'd  to 
have  been  unufually  great,  during  the  courfe  of 
our  Savior's  miniftry  -,  yet,  the  inference,  which 
this  fuppofition  recommendeth,  is,  That  God, 
in  the  midjl  of  judgment ,  remembreth  mercy ' 
and  comforteth  mankind  with  tokens  of  His 
love,  whil'ft  He  teacheth  them  to  revere  His 
juftice.  All  other  calamities,  that  are  inciden- 
tal to  us,  have  their  refpe&ive  feafons,  provi- 
dentially determin'd:  nor  do'th  our  Creator's 
tendernefs  towards  His  creatures  allow  His  ju- 
dicial punilhments  to  prevail  perpetually.  And, 
when  they  have  been  with-held  thro'  a  Ions? 
feries  of  years,  men  ought,  'tis  true,  in  grati- 
tude, to  acknowledg  His  clemency  -,  cannot,  in 
reafon,  maintain,  that  no  fuch  calamities  had 
ever  been  felt,  as  might Jiave  indanger'd  their 
fafety.  Inftead,  then,  of  turning  the  remark- 
able examples  of  demoniacal  obfeffion,  during 
our  Savior's  life  on  earth,  into  an  obje&ion 
againft  the  reality  of  the  fadl ;  impartiality  of 
judgment  requireth  aflfent  to  the  relation  of 

D  2  the 


a8      The  ufual  interpretation 

the  fad ;  whilft  piety  calls  for  a  reverential  ac- 
knowledgment of  divine  goodnefs,  in  that  ex- 
traordinary difpenfation. 

For,  what  is  more  declarative  of  divine  good- 
nefs, than  the  fuppreffion  of  the  fury  and  force 
of  the  apoftate  fpirits,  'til  that  Perfon  appear'd 
on  earth,  thro'  whom  their  tyranny  was  to  be 
vifibly  chaftis'd,  and,  at  length,  abolifh'di*  Ac- 
cording to  this  gracious  appointment,  the  ma- 
lady was  not  fuffer'd  to  break  out  in  it's  ut- 
moft  virulence,  before  the  phyfician  was  ex- 
hibited to  view,  whofe  command  was  fufficient 
to  effed:  a  cure.  Of  the  time,  indeed,  of 
His  advent  and  it's  confequences,  the  grand 
adverfary  perhaps,  thro'  his  acquaintance  with 
prophecy,  might  be  appriz'd.  Senfible,  there- 
for, that  his  kingdom  was  threaten'd  with  ap- 
proaching ruin,  he  might  hereupon  naturally 
colled:,  and  difcharge,  his  utmoft  rage  againft 
mankind;  make  his  afiaults  more  frequently 
as  well  as  vehemently,  and  the  torments  of 
the  afTaulted  more  intenfe.  And,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  violence  T  of  the  ftrong,  muft  rife 

l  Matt.  XII.  29.  LukeXI.ai,2i,  compar'd  with  If.XL. 
ic,  where  the  words  fcO*  ptPD  —  feem  moft  properly  ren- 

dcr\\~fiall  come  AGAINST  THE    POWERFUL  — by  THE 

powerful  being  meant  •  i%?$st  robujlm  ille^  mention'd 
HI  the  GpfpeL    See  the  learned  Vitringa  on  the  place. 

the 


^aaimones  &c.  ajfferted.     xp 

the  idea  of  that  goodnefs,  which  provided  a 
ftronger  than  him  -  One,  more  mighty  to  fave, 
than  he  was  to  deftroy. 

Upon  the  whole  —  This  event  might  be  fa 
far  conducive  to  the  general  benefit  of  men, 
and  promotion  of  the  great  ends  of  Provi- 
dence, in  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
as  it  is  apt  to  create  a  more  lively  fenfe  and 
dread  of  the  dangerous  attacks  of  Satan ;  and 
to  raife  a  grateful  admiration  of  that  friendly 
and  powerful  arm,  which  fo  vifibly  and  effec- 
tually interpos'd,  to  repel  and  reprefs  them 
totally.  In  the  falutary  influence  deriv'd  on 
the  body,  by  the  word  and  thro'  the  name  of 
Chrift,  His  divine  authority  might  clearly  be 
difcernd;  and  a  firm  perfuafion  thence  col- 
le&ed,  that  His  influence  woud  extend  it-felf 
with  equal  efficacy,  to  the  deliverance  of  the 
foul.  And,  from  this  perfuafion  the  tranfition 
is  eafy  to  the  neceffity  of  believing  in  Him 
and  obeying  His  laws,  in  order  to  be  qualify'd 
to  partake  of  that  great,  com  pleat  falvation, 
of  which  He  declar'd  Himftlf,  by  many  infaUi^ 
lie  proofs,  to  be  the  author. 

In  fine  -  By  the  tenor  of  the  preceding  re- 
flexions we  may  be  inftru&ed,  to  fufpeft  the 

arts 


30      The  ufual  interpretation 

arts  and  defigns  of  pretenders  to  fuch  difcove- 
ry,  as  the  Inquirer  hath  propos'd.  The  ufe 
and  intent  of  language  forbid  his  interpreta- 
tion ;  the  ftream  of  antiquity  is  unfavorable  to 
it.  And  tho*  this  floweth  not  unpolluted  al- 
ways ;  yet,  impurities  are  not  utterly  infepar- 
able  from  it,  provided  affiftance  herein  be 
drawn  (as  it  ought  to  be)  from  the  facred 
fburces  of  revealed  truth.  The  contrary  me- 
thod of  altering,  or  rather,  corrupting  Scrip- 
ture-notions, by  the  unexamin'd,  or  unduly  ex- 
amin'd,  evidences  of  pagan  monuments,  is  e- 
qually  J  unreafonable  and  irreligious.  But,  this 
pra&ice  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Inquirer:  nor 
is  he  alone  in  the  fentiments,  which  he  hath 
undertaken  to  defend.  One  venerable  name 
he  hath  produc'd  in  favour  of  his  caufe;  and 
feveral  others  might  have  been  cited  with  e- 
qual  propriety,  at  leaft;  becaufe  equally,  if  not 
more  diredtly,  confentient  with  him.  If  he 
did  not  know,  that  z  Pomponatius,  }  Vaninus, 

i  UnreafonaHe  —  becaufe  thereby,  what  is  clear,  plain 
and  confiftent,  is  exchang'd  for  that,  which  is  often  ob- 
fcure,  intricate,  and  full  of  contradiction  :  Irreligious  —  be- 
caufe it  imports  a  preference  of  that,  which  is  human,  to 
that  which  is  divine,  2  Tradt.  de  incantat.  p.  10.  &  de 
immortal,  animae  p.i 3^.  quern  citat  doctif.  Deyling.  Ob- 
ferv.  facr.  XXVIII.  T.  2.     3  Dialog. 54.  p.  406. 

1  Hobbs, 


of  AAmckEX  &c.  averted.     31 

1  Hobbs,  2  Spinoza,  and  ?  Bekker  efpecially, 
had  all  patronis'd  the  fame  opinion;  he  may 
perhaps,  when  he  cometh  to  this  knowledge 
congratulate  himfelf  upon  the  lucky  coinci- 
dence of  his  own  thoughts  with  the  thoughts 
of  men,  diftinguifh'd  by  Angular  penetration. 
If  he  was  not  a  ftranger  to  their  concurrence, 
their  chara&ers  might  have  juftify'd  a  fufpi- 
cion,  at  leaft,  of  the  do&rin,  and  occafion'd 
a  more  accurate  inquiry  into  the  foundation 
of  it,  before  it  was  efpous'd  and  publicly  re- 
viv'd.  But,  difputes  of  irreligious  tendency 
muft  be  kept  up,  in  one  or  other  form;  and, 
when  invention  hath  been  exhaufted,  in  a  va- 
riety of  antifcriptural  attempts ;  old,  fcattefd 
forces  muft  be  rally'd,  in  order  to  maintain 
the  ingagement. 

The  obftinate,  diverfify'd  refiftance,  indeed, 
to  Gofpel  truth,  with  which  this  age  and  na- 
tion are  difgraced,  may  feem  to  argue,  that 
this  is  the  hour  of  it  s  enemies^  and  of  the  power 
of  darknefs:  a  power,  which  is  then  moft  like- 
ly to  be  fatal,  when  it  is  induftrioufly  and 
hardily  ridiculd ;  none  being  more  expos'd  to 

i  Leviath.  pc.  4.  c.  45*.    1  Tra&at.  theolog.  polit.  c.i. 
3  Le  monde  enchante  liv.  4.  c.  8,  9. 

fall 


gx  The  tijual  interpretation  &c. 

fall  by  it,  than  thofe,  who  think  they  ftand  in 
greateft  fecurity  from  it. 

The  believer  regards  it  in  a  proper  manner, 
when  he  maketh  it  an  argument  of  Jobriety 
and  vigilance  —  of  the  neceffity  of  recurring  to 
a  fuperior  principle  for  aid  againft  it ;  and  of 
begging,  that,  thro'  the  interpofition  of  di- 
vine grace,  he  may  find  a  way  to  efcape  unin- 
jur'dj  in  the  exigencies  of  trial. 

God  grant  us  fuch  ftrength  and  protection, 
as  may  fupport  us  in  all  dangers,  and  carry  us 
thro'  all  temptations,  for  Jefus  Chrift  His  fake  - 
To  whom,  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
be  univerfal  and  eternal  glory.- 


A  N 


E         S         S  A 


ON       THE 


DEMONor  DIVINATION 

0  F 

SOCRATES. 

1  "H£7\f"V 


LONDON, 

PRINTED    FOR    T.    PAYNE    AND    SON, 

kAT    THE    MEUSE-GATE. 
M.DCC.LXXXII. 


C   s   3 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


TO  a  work  fo  trifling  as  this  is,  a 
Preface  would  be  ridiculous.  What 
the  author  thought  neceffary  to  fay  of  the 
nature  and  importance  of  the  fubjeft  is 
included  in  the  Efiay  itfelf,  or  in  the 
Notes  annexed.  Suffice  it  here  to  fay, 
that  the  folution  now  offered  of  an  ac- 
knowledged difficulty,  was  firft  fuggefted 
by  the  words  of  Xenophon,  and  that  fome 
years  ago.  Had  the  hypothefis  been  pre- 
viouily  formed,  and  the  interpretation 
of  the  palTages  adduced  afterwards  ac- 
commodated to  it,  the  refult  might  have 
a  3  been 


16] 

been  lefs  worthy  of  attention  :  for  what 
cannot  a  theorizer  detort  to  his  purpofe  ? 
Subfeqnent  reading  and  enquiry  have 
confirmed  the  idea:  and  as  the  author 
has  not  difcovered,  in  any  book  that  he 
has  confulted,  any  further  traces  of  it 
than  thofe  which  will  herein  be  produced, 
he  conceives  that  it  is  in  fome  degree  a 
new  one.  This  is  his  reafon  fororTeriner 
it  to  the  public. 


JU»J  *»  R.     N  A  R  E  S, 


ON      THE 


DEMON  or  DIVINATION 


oF 


SOCRATES. 


TTZHETHER  the  admirable  Socrates 
had  or  had  not  a  fupernatural  at- 
tendant, a  prophetic  Demon,  by  whofe 
warnings  he  was  frequently  afTifted ; 
whether  he  imagined  himfelf  to  be  fo  at- 
tended, or  wiihed  only  to  imprefs  that 
belief  upon  thofe  about  him-,  or,  laftly, 
whether  a  mifconftru&ion  of  his  words, 
and  an  inattention  to  his  ftyle  of  conver- 
fation,  have  not  been  the  fole  fupport  of 
thefe  extraordinary  ideas ;  are  queftions 

B  long 


•C   *    ] 

long  debated,  varioufly  handled,  and  yet 
at  this  day  confefTedly  undecided  (A). 
Several  ancient  treatifes,  in  which  they  are 
exprefsly  difcufled,  are  (till  extant-,  nor 
are  modern  writers  wanting  who  have  de- 
voted their  pens  to  the  fame  enquiry  (B). 
Of  thofe  who,  in  all  times,  have  inci- 
dentally touched  upon  the  fubjecT:,  a  ca- 
talogue might  ealily  be  drawn  out  to  a 
formidable  extent.  Yet  fo  ftrangely  op- 
pofed  to  each  other,  in  this  inftance,  are 
hypothecs  and  evidence,  probability  and 
hiftorical  faith,  that,  after  all  his  read- 
ing, the  mind  of  the  enquirer  ftill  fluctu- 
ates in  fufpence. 

It  mult  however  be  acknowledged, 
that  the  importance  of  the  queftion  is 
fufficient  to  juitify  the  diligence  of  in- 
veftigation  beftowed  upon  it.  We  are 
accuftomed,  not  without  reafon,  to  look 
up  to  Socrates  with  the  higheft  admira- 
tion. We  behold  him  as  one  of  thofe 
exalted  characters,  in  the  contemplation 
of  which  the  good  man  feels  an  honefl 
pride,  rejoicing,  as  a  patriot  in  the  great 

community 


[     3     3 

community  of  the  world,  in  that  excel- 
lence whereby  the  dignity  of  the  fpecies 
is  aflerted.     Socrates  was  the  fountain  of 
the  pureft  philofophy  of  Greece  ;  and  the 
brighter!:  example  of  that  morality,  of 
which   he  was  the    ableft   teacher.     Of 
fuch  a  man  the  mod  trivial  anecdotes  ac- 
quire a  dignity ;  but  thofe  in  particular 
deferve  a   diligent  difcuflion  which  are 
connected  with  his  fpeculative  opinions. 
A  proper  zeal  for  maintaining  the  con- 
fiftency  of  a  character  fo  diftinguifhed, 
makes  us  very  unwilling  to  defcend  into 
the  dilemma  to  which  a  free-thinking  wit 
of  our  own  times  has  endeavoured  to  re- 
duce the  whole  difpute.     "  As  for  the 
human  foul,    fays  Voltaire  (the  author  to 
whom  I  allude),  Socrates  had  doubtkfs 
been  informed  of  its  nature,  by  his  De- 
mon.   There  are  indeed,  he  adds,  fome 
perfons  who  maintain  that  a  man,  who 
boafted  of  a  familiar  genius,  mud  have 
been  either  a  knave  or  a  fool ;  but  thefe 
are  too  nice  in  their  ideas."     Melanges  de 
Pbilof*     et    Uterat* — If   Socrates    was 
B  2  either 


C     4     ] 

cither  of  thefe,  he  was  wonderfully 
fucccfsful  in  eftablifhing  an  opinion  of 
himfelf  diametrically  contrary  to  both  -, 
and  the  dilemma,  if  a  juft  one,  will  em- 
brace a  confiderable  company,  all  of 
whom  have  been  thought  worthy  of  a 
better  fame  ;  for  what,  on  fuch  a  fuppo- 
iition,  can  he  thought  of  the  numerous 
followers  of  this  philofopher,  who  re- 
garded both  his  principles  and  his  abili- 
ties with  the  trueft  efteem,  and  the  moft 
enthnfiaflic  admiration  ?  —  But  I  am 
wafting  time  and  words  on  that  which  is 
beneath  a  refutation. 

The  queftion,  however,  is  of  fuch  a 
nature  as  to  demand  great  caution  in 
thofe  who  would  refolve  it,  fince  either  to 
cut  the  knot  entirely  by  difcrediting  the 
whole  narration,  or  to  elude  the  pre/lure 
of  it  by  forced  explanation  and  unfatif- 
factory  refinement,  is  alike  to  make  the 
very  pillars  of  hittorical  evidence,  and 
confound  every  rule  of  criticifm  and  in- 
terpretation. The  learned  Olearius  law 
this,  and  was  willing  rather  implicitly  to 

believe 


f     5    ] 

believe  the  whole,  than  to  hazard  the 
confequences  of  denying  it.  The  con- 
cluding words  of  his  treatife  are  to  this 
effect :  "  Non  dubito  ad  fummum  prq- 
babilitatis  gradum  provehi  earn,  qu^ 
Socrati  v\tx  magiflrum  adhsefifie  ge- 
nium  exiftimat,  fententiam.  Quae  fi  ca- 
dat,  magnorum  inter  veteres  virorum 
autoritates,  Socratis  virtus  &  integritas, 
ipfa,  paene  dixerim  omnis  hiilorige  fides 
ruinam  ejus  fubfequatur,  neceffeenV' 

A  queftion  that  involves  fo  much,  can- 
not be  unworthy  of  examination  :  and  if 
in  the  courfe  of  this  EMay  it  mould  be 
(hewn,  that  though  the  hiftorical  narra- 
tion of  thefe  things  wants  neither  founda- 
tion nor  fidelity,  yet  the  wifdom  and  in- 
tegrity of  Socrates  may  remain  unim- 
peached,  neither  the  writer  nor  the  reader 
will,  I  hope,  repent  of  the  moments 
bellowed  upon  it. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  clear  our  way 

to  this  enquiry  by  a  very  brief  review  of 

prior  opinions  concerning  it.     Thefe  may 

be  reduced  to    two  general]  heads ;   no 

B  3  notice 


[     6     ] 

notice  being  taken  of  thofe  who  difcredit 
the  whole,  nor  of  the  curious  hypothecs 
juft    mentioned  -,  which,    if   it   abound 
not   with   philofophy    or  candour,    has 
.ftt  lead    that   merit    which     the   author 
unfortunately  efteemed  too  highly,  that 
of  novelty  (C).     The  remaining  opinions 
are,  as  I  faid,  of  two  kinds  only,     i .  The 
firlt  is    that   of  thofe  who  are  inclined 
to    give   implicit    credit   to  the   hiltory 
as  commonly  underltood,    and   to  allow 
that  Socrates  was  actually  attended  by  a 
familiar   Demon  ;    an  opinion  founded 
upon  the   words    of  Plato,     fupported 
upon   the   principles  of  his   philofophy, 
by  the  fuperltition  of  his  followers ;  and 
too  eafily  admitted  afterwards  by  the  Pla- 
tonizing  Christians,  whofe  notions  of  De- 
mons were  nearly  coincident  with  thofe 
of  the  Academic  (D).     2.  The   fecond, 
and  of  late  ye.:rs,  for  evident  reafons,  the 
molt  in  falhion,  is  that  of  thofe  who  en- 
deavour to  explain  away  the  meaning  of 
the   word  Demon;  who  would   perfuade 
themfelves  and  others  that  the  reafon,  pe- 
netration, or  wifdotn  of  the  philofopher, 

with 


C    7    3 

with  a  certain  felicity  of  conjecturing  con- 
tingent events,  is  all  that  the  expreffion 
implies.     The   Demonifts,    if  I  may  be 
allowed  the  expreffion,  have    been  fun- 
di vided  into  two  parties.     For    though 
the  character  of  Socrates  was,  one  fhould 
conceive,  exalted  enough  to  fecure  even 
that  of  his  familiar  from  fufpicion,  there 
have  not  been   wanting  feme  (E)  who 
have  included  his  Demon  in  the  lift  of 
malignant  fpirits. 

To. give  the  reader,  who  may  happen 
to  be  uninformed  upon  this  curious  iub- 
ye&c,  an  idea  how  ftrong  the  evidence  for 
the  literal  or  platonic  acceptation  of  the 
hiftory  has  appeared,  even  to  the  mod  ju- 
dicious and  cautious  critics,  I  need  only 
mention,  that  Dr.  Jortin  (a  man  to  whofe 
judgement   and    fagacity    almoft    every 
branch  of  literature  has  been   indebted 
for  illuftration)  has  confeffed  himfelf  "fo 
far  a  fanatic,'9  as  to  incline  to  give  it 
his  affent,  "  though,"  he  adds,  with  his 
ufual    candid     moderation,    "    without 
blaming  thofe  who  are  of  another  mind." 
Rem.  on  Eccl  Hijl.  vol.  I.  p.  95. 

B  4  But 


[     8     ] 

But  the  admiflion  of  this  opinion 
brings  on  too  great  a  train  of  confe- 
quences  not  to  produce  fome  hefitation ; 
and  for  the  other,  I  can  only  fay  that, 
if  there  be  meaning  in  words,  and  crici- 
cifm  be  any  thing  berrer  than  an  idle 
name  of  what  has  no  exiftence,  it  is  re- 
pugnant to  the  plained  reafon,  and  on  a 
multiplicity  of  accounts  wholly  inad* 
miilible. 

My  own  hypothecs  will  have  fome 
objections  to  encounter,  unlefs  the  two 
following  propofitions  be  previoufly  ad- 
mitted. But  theie  are,  if  I  miftake  not, 
too  plain  to  occafion  the  flighted  hefi- 
tation. 

i.  That  for  the  determination  of  any 
queilion  concerning  Socrates,  whether  it 
relate  to  his  hiitory,  or  to  his  opinions, 
the  authority  of  Xenophon  is  preferable 
to  that  of  Plato. 

2.  That  a  Jingle  inftance  of  error,  or 
of  fuperfliticn,  is  by  no  means  incom- 
patible with  the  character  even  of  the 
grcatefl  and  beft  of  men* 

The 


I    9    ] 

The  former  of  thefe  afiertions  is  al- 
lowed even  by  thofe  who  in  practice  have 
the  le.  ft  applied  it ;  and  is  indeed  too 
clear  to  require  much  iliuftration  (r ). 
To  every  one  not  wholly  ignorant  of  the 
Greek  philofophy  it  is  known,  that  of  all 
the  numerous  followers  of  Socrates,  Xe- 
nophon  was  he  who  confined  himfeif  in  his 
writings  mod  religioufly  to  the  principles 
of  his  mailer.  But,  not  with  Handing  tbis^ 
it  certainly  has  happened  that  the  tefli- 
mony  of  Plato  has  in  t  .is  que  (lion  been 
received  with  perrecl  reliance  (G),  and 
Xenophon  himfeif  made  to  lpcak  a  lan- 
guage which  neither  his  exprcffions  nor 
his  arguments  will  admit,  in  order  to  fa- 
vour the  preconcepjions  to  which  foine 
paifages  of  Plato's  writings  have  given 
birth.  Had  the  former  been  fllenj  upon 
the  fubjecl,  or  had  he  fpoken  flight ly  or 
obfcurely  of  it,  necefiity  would  have  ex- 
cufed  the  recurrence  to  his  rival;  though 
even  then  that  evidence  would  have 
been  liable  to  fume  exceptions.  But 
Xenophon,   as    will    appear  mod  fully 

when 


[   «   0 

ivhen  his  words  (hall  have  been  confider- 
ed,  has  treated  it  profefiedly,  with  clear- 
nefs  and  flrength  of  expreffion  j  and  no- 
thing can  account  for  the  mifconception 
or  the  difregard  of  his  opinion,  but  the 
refiftiefs  power  of  prejudice,  and  an  idea 
too  haftily  adopted,  that  theie  two  great 
followers  of  Socrates  could  not  difagree 
in  the  relation  of  a  fact  refpeding  him. 
The  Platonic  writers  being  the  firft  who 
di  feu  (Ted  the  quell  ion,  the  fad:  has  been 
chiefly  feen  through  the  medium  of  their 
reprefentations,  and  the  tincture  of  Pla- 
tonifm  has  remained  upon  it  to  this  day. 

For  the  proof  of  my  fecond  propofi- 
tion,  it  would  be  rcquifite  to  dwell  upon 
the  failings  of  thofe  men  whofe  excel- 
lencies are  mod  univerfally  acknow- 
ledged. The  talk,  though  invidious  and 
unpleafant,  would  be  in  no  great  degree- 
laborious.  A  catalogue  of  the  great 
men  who  have  fuffered  their  imaginations 
to  be  feduced  by  the  follies  of  judicial 
aflrology,  would  alone  be  of  confiderable 
extent.     We  have -the  confeflion  of  one 

defervedlv 


C    it    ] 

defervedly  eminent,  under  his  own  hand, 
tq  allure  us,  that  he  was  among  that 
number  (H).  But  of  all  thole  againfl 
whom  a  fimilar  accufation  may  be  made 
good,  Socrates  is  perhaps  the  moil  excufe- 
able,  as  we  dial  1  fee  more  fully  in  a  fubfe- 
quent  part  of  this  eflay.  If  the  above 
proportions  mould  appear  too  eafy  and 
obvious  to  deferve  the  attention  here  be- 
stowed upon  them,  let  it  be  remembered 
how  capable  the  flighted  prejudice  is  to 
obftruct  the  admiffion  of  truth. 

Tp  dwell  no  longer  upon  prefatory 
matters,  the  folution  here  propofed  to  be 
given  of  this  famous  queftion  is  founded 
on  a  fact  very  often  denied,  and  that 
upon  the  very  principles  againft  which 
the  latter  of  the  above  prcpofitions  is 
is  aimed,  "  That  Socrates  believed  in  the 
gods  of  his  country,  and  was  not  free  from 
the  fuperflit  ions  connected  with  that  belief; 
particularly  thofe  refpecllng  omens  and  di- 
vination" This  fa&,  as  well  fupported 
by  hiftorical  evidence  as  any  thing  in 
the  hiftory  of  Socrates,  has  been  fo  ob- 

fcured 


{       "       3 

fcureci  by  falfe  hypothefes,and  a  miftaken 
zeal  for  the  character  of  the  philofopher, 
that  it  was  near  being  confined  to  obli- 
vion  ;  but  it  could  not  efcape  the  pene- 
trating eye  of  the  illuftrious  Bifhop 
Sherlock  •, -with  whofe  words  upon  the 
fubjedt  I  (hall  be  proud  to  ornament  my 
page.  "  The  apology  which  Socrates 
made  for  himfeif  is  preferved  to  us 
by  two  the  ableft  of  his  fcholars,  and 
the  bed  writers  of  antiquity,  Plato  and 
Xenophon  \  and  from  both  their  accounts 
it  appears,  that  Socrates  maintained 
and  after  ted  before  his  judges,  that  he 
worjhiped  the  gods  of  his  country,  and 
that  he  facrificed,  in  private  and  in  pub- 
lic, upon  the  allowed  altars,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  rites  and  cuftoms  of  the  city. 
After  this  public  confeMlon,  fo  authen- 
tically reported  by  two  fo  able  hands, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  his  cafe.  He 
was  an  idolater,  and  had  not,  by  his  great 
knowledge  and  ability,  delivered  himfeif 
from  the  practice  of  the  fuperftition  of 
his  country."     Then  follows  the  noble 

contrail: 


C     V     ] 

contrafi  between  the  conduct  and  fenti- 
ments  of  this  philofopher,  and  ihofe  of 
the  apoflle  Paul,  one  of  the  fined  pieces 
of  eloquence  that  ever  flowed  from  the 
pen  of  a  writer  not  infpired.  To  which 
is  fubjoined  the  following  anfwer  to  a 
probable  cavil.  "  The  manner  in  which 
Socrates  died  was  the  calmeft  and  the 
bravefl  in  the  world,  and  excludes  alt 
pretention  to  fay  that  he  diffembled  his 
opinion  and  practice  before  his  judges,,, 
out  of  any  fear  or  meannefs  of  fpirit;  vices 
with  which  he  was  never  taxed,,  and  of 
which  he  feems  to  have  been  incapable." 
—Sherlock,  voL  I.  difc.  4.  pari  2.  Nor 
can  I  fee  any  better  foundation  for  a 
fuppofition  that  he  indulged  himfelf  in 
the  double  doctrine,  which  many  other 
philofophers  thought  proper  to  maintain. 
He  does  not  appear,  like  them,  to  have 
had  any  difiinction  of  cfoteric  and  exote- 
ric principles,  of  a  religion  for  the  wife, 
and  another  for  the  vulgar.  The  plain 
truth,  which  accounts  for  this,  and  every 
other  difficulty  in  the  hiflory  of  his  re- 
ligion, 


C     14     ] 

ligion,  is  this :  His  theological  {pecula- 
tions were  altogether  of  a  general  kind; 
nor  did  he  ever  allow  himfelf  to  defcend 
into  the  examination  of  minute  particu- 
lars concerning  matters  which  he  thought 
beyond  the  comprehenfion  of  any  human 
faculties.  His  ftrong  reafon  induced 
him  to  believe,  and  enabled  him  moft 
admirably  to  defend,  the  exiftence  of  an 
intelligent  Providence.  His  education 
furnifhed  him  with  the  names  and  offices 
of  numerous  deities,  whofe  exiftence, 
though  he  could  not  nor  ever  tried  to 
prove,  he  never  once  prefumed  to  dis- 
pute (I).  Such  enquiries  he  thought 
prefumptuous,  and  had  no  good  opinion 
of  their  utility.  The  idle  fables  related 
of  them  he  probably  rejected  as  the  fig- 
ments of  inventive  brains  *,  but  thefe 
might  be  falfe  without  affecting  the  ex- 
iftence of  thofe  beings,  of  whofe  interpofi- 
tion  in  the  conduct  of  human  affairs  he 
feems  not  to  have  entertained  the  fmalleft 
doubt.  This  evidently  appears  from 
every  hiftory  of  his  life,  and  from  every 

rcgifkr 


[     iS     1 

regifter  of  his  opinions.  Such  being  his 
eftablimed  principles,  he  was  naturally 
led  from  thence  to  the  belief  in  omens, 
dreams,  oracles,  and  divinations,  of  every 
name  and  fpecies ;  a  belief  which,  as  he 
took  it  up  without  any  rigorous  examina- 
tion, did  doubtlefs,  according  to  the  inva- 
riable nature  of  fuch  ideas,  grow  habitual 
and  inveterate  in  his  mind.  In  the  firft: 
chapter  of  the  memoirs  written  by  Xeno- 
phon,the  creed  of  Socrates  is  very  exactly 
ilated  $  in  it,  not  the  words,  but  the  opi- 
nions of  the  fage,  are  delivered ;  and  I 
think  it  hardly  poilible  to  read  it  through 
with  attention,  without  being  convinced 
that  he  had  at  lead  as  much  faith  in  the 
religion  of  Athens,  as  in  this  eilay  is  at- 
tributed to  him. 

The  whole  chapter  is  fo  eafily  read, 
and  fo  well  worthy  of  a  perufal,  thatlfhal! 
extract  but  little  for  my  prefent  purpofe, 
choofing  rather  to  refer  my  readers  to 
Xenophon  himfelf.  "  Concerning  mat- 
ters of  uncertain  event,  he  fent  his  friends 
to  enquire  by  divination  whether  or  not 

they 


[     16     ] 

they  ought  to  be  undertaken." — §.  6.  Of 
this  his  practice,  the  writer  of  the  account 
had  the  moil  unequivocal  knowledge, 
for  he  had  experienced  it  in  a  caie  of  his 
own(K).  "He  thought  that  neither 
private  families  nor  public  bufmefs  could 
properly  be  adminifiered  without  the  aid 
of  divination." — §.7.  "  Far  from  con- 
fining the  knowledge  of  the  gods  to  par- 
tial matters,  as  was  done  by  fome,  he 
thought  them  omnifcient  and  omnipre- 
fent-,  and  believed  that  on  every  fuitable 
occaficn  in  human  life,  they  gave  intima- 
tions to  direct  the  conduct  of  men." — 
§.  19.  If  we  want  further  proof,  that 
Socrates  was  not  above  the  common  no- 
tions of  divination,  we  may  recollect  that 
the  occafion  of  his  admirable  difcourfe 
with  Aridodemus  on  the  exigence  of 
the  Gods,  recorded  in  the  fame  book  of 
memoirs,  Was  not  only  his  neglect  ot 
woi  fhip,  but  his  diiregard  of  the  arts  of 
divining.  But  why  do  I  multiply  autho- 
rities from  a  book  abounding  with  them; 
a  book  lb  certain  to  repay,  in  a  multi- 
2  plici.y 


[  H  1 

plicity  of  ways,  the  attention  of  thofe 
who  coniult  it  r  Known  it  certainly  is,  in 
fome  degree,  to  all  who  have  advanced 
as  far  only  as  to  the  threfhold  of  academi- 
cal inftruction  ;  but  fuch  is  it,  that  thofe 
who  know  it  beft  may  derive  fome  ad- 
vantages from  knowing  it  yet  better  ♦,  the 
more  it  is  confidered  the  more  it  will  be 
admired,  and  the  better  will  that  heart 
be  on  which  its  fimple  and  elegant  docu- 
ments are  moft  deeply  engraven.  The 
ftudy  of  the  Life  of  Socrates  will  furnifh 
abundance  of  collateral  evidence  to  the 
point  here  argued,  and  will  tend  to  the 
fame  good  purpofes  of  morality. 

After  what  has  been  faid,  it  will  apear 
no  longer  wonderful  that  Socrates,  in  his 
lateft  days  of  life,  mould  be  moved  by  an 
ambiguous  dream  to  turn  his  thoughts  to 
poetry,  and  addrefs  an  hymn  to  Apollo : 
—and  that  even  his  dying  injunctions  re- 
lated to  the  performance  of  a  vow  previ* 
ouily  made  to  the  falfe  deity  ^Efculapius; 
actions,  in  vain  attempted  to  be  ac- 
counted for  on   the  notion  of  irony  or 

C  ridicule 


C     18     ] 

ridicule  (L),  yet  too  well  fupported  by 
hiftorical  evidence  not  to  be  believed  ; 
which  therefore  have  embarrafTed,  and 
ever  will  embarrafs,  thofe  who  fuppofe 
him  to  have  been  ftiperior  to  every  fpe- 
cies  of  fu perdition. 

Having  proceeded  fo  far  as  this,  I  can 
hardly  perfuade  myfelf  that  my  readers 
will  not  be  before-hand  with  me  in  form- 
ing to  themfelves  the  conjecture  which 
I  am  about  to  offer;  u  That  Socrates,  by 
the  exprej/ions  ufually  tinderftood  to  refer  to 
his  Demon,  alluded  only  to  Jbtne  fpecies  of 
divination  perfectly  analogous  to  the  omens 
of  his  age  and  country  j  and  it  might  at 
leaft  pafs  current  as  a  probable  hypothe- 
fis,  could  I  give  it  no  further  fupport. 
But  there  is  no  need  to  abandon  it  in  a 
ftate  of  fuch  imperfection ;  the  exprefs 
teftimony  of  Xenophon  is  for  it,  and  that 
teftimony  fo  amply  illuftrated  by  the 
words  of  a  fubfequent  Greek  writer  and 
philofopher,  that  not  the  flighted  doubt 
of  its  meaning  can  remain. 

"  Socrates/' 


C   19   ] 

"  Socrates,"  fays  his  beft  and  trued 
difciple,  "  was  accufed  of  having  intro- 
duced new  deities ;  an  accufation  which 
feems  to  me  to  have  arifen  chiefly  from 
what  was  commonly  reported  as  a  faying 
of  his,  that  the  Deity  •  gave  him  intima- 
tions. But  in  fo  faying,  he  introduced 
nothing  more  new  than  all  others  do  that 
believe  in  divination ;  who,  when  they 
employ  auguries,  and  the  like,  to  that 
purpofe,  never  fuppofe  any  knowledge 
of  what  is  fought  to  refide  in  the  bird,  or 
whatever  elfe  it  be  that  furnifhes  the 
omen  ;  but  that  the  gods,  by  the  agency 
of  thefe,  declare  it.  The  fame  was  the 
opinion  of  Socrates  ;  but  they  (not  ex- 
prefling  themfelves  with  accuracy)  affirm 
themfelves  to  be  advifed  by  the  birds, 
&c.  whereas  he  was  always  careful  to  re- 
fer the  advice  to  that  power  whence  he 
(and  they  alfo)  conceived  it  really  to  pro 
ceed  s  therefore  he  faid  that  the  Deity  QA) 

*  It  fhould  be  recollected,  that  the  Greek  term 
fxifiotiov  has  an  ambiguity,  which  in  Englifli  can- 
not be  preferred . 

C  2  gave 


e  *  i 

gave  him  the  fignal."  In  making  this 
tianflation  of  the  words  of  Xenophon, 
my  endeavour  has  been  rather  to  explain 
and  illuftrate  his  meaning,  and  to  ftate 
his  argument  clearly,  than  to  adhere  ex- 
actly to  his  exprefiions ;  but  that  in  fo 
doing  I.  have  taken  no  unwarrantable  li- 
berties, the  original  pafTage  in  the  notes, 
which  I  would  wifh  every  reader  to  con- 
fult,  will  fufficiently  demonftrate(N) : 
in  my  opinion,  unlefs-  the  argument  pro- 
ceed upon  the  principles  here  attributed 
to  it,  there  is  neither  found  reafoning,  nor 
any  real  defence  of  Socrates,  contained 
in  the  pafTage.  The  refutation  of  the 
fame  charge  is  repeated  in  the  apology 
of  Xenophon,  in  terms  very  fimilar  to 
thofe  here  employed,  but  flill  more 
ftrongly  pointing  to  the  conclufion  which 
I  deduce  from  them.  "  How  is  it,"  fays 
Socrates,  "  that  I  am  guilty  of  intro- 
ducing new  deities,  in  that  I  fay  that  the 
voice  of  the  Divinity  gives  me  notice  what 
I  (hall  do  } — All  men,  as  well  as  myfelf, 
araof  opinion,  that  the  Divinity  forefees 

the 


[       21       ] 

the  future,  and  to  whom  he  pleafes  fig- 
nifies  it:  but  the  difference  between  us 
is  this  •,  they  name  the  birds,  the  omens, 
&c.  as  the  foretellers  of  what  is  to  come  : 
I  call  the  fame  thing  the  Divinity  (or  the 
Deity)  ;  and  I  think  that,  in  fo  faying,  I 
fpeak  more  truly  and  more  refpe&fully 
than  thofe  do  who  attribute  to  birds  the 
power  which  belongs  to  the  gods  (O)." 
And  fo  far  was  this  writer  from  annexing 
to  the  words  in  difpute  any  idea  of  a 
Demon,  that  in  the  very  next  paragraph 
he  fubftitutes  for  them  a  god,  and  the 
gods,  as  expreffions  perfectly  equiva- 
lent. 

This  furely  is  fufficiently  ftrong  ;  but 
yet,  to  give  it  ftill  greater  weight,  we 
find,  in  the  elegant  treatife  of  Plutarch 
upon  the  genius  of  Socrates  (P),  a  pafTage 
fo  (Irongly  pointed  to  our  purpofe,  that 
a  commentary,  exprefsly  written  to  il- 
luftrate  it,  could  not  more  happily  have 
performed  that  office.  It  is  fair,  how- 
ever, previoufly  to  remark,  that  the  au- 
thor himfelf,  if  his  opinion  can  be  ga  • 
C  3  thered 


[      22      ] 

thercd  from  a  dialogue  in  which  the 
queftion  receives  no  formal  folution,  ap- 
pears inclined  to  regard  the  Demon  of 
Socrates  as  being  actually  one  of  thofe 
mediatorial  agents  fo  confpicuous  in  the 
Platonic  fyftem.  In  this  dialogue  a  per- 
fonage,  named  Galaxidorus,  is  made  to 
defend  the  very  hypothefis  here  infifted 
upon,  that  probably  the  divination  of 
of  Socrates  was  a  mere  omen,  and  even 
one  fo  arbitrary  and  common  as  the  acl: 
of  fneezing  (Q^).  And  for  the  mode  of 
expreflion  employed  by  the  phiiofopher, 
he  accounts  exactly  as  Xenophon,  when 
his  words  are  rightly  underftood,  is  founc} 
to  have  done ;  but,  fortunately  for  my 
argument,  in  terms  ftill  more  explicit 
and  decifive :  u  I  turn,"  fays  he,  "  to 
you,  Polymnis,  who  exprefs  a  wonder 
that  Socrates,  a  man,  whofe  peculiar  merit 
it  was,  that,  by  unoftentatious  fimplicity, 
he  accommodated  philofophy  to  the  ufes 
of  human  life,  fhould  not  have  called  this 
fign  a  fneeze  or  a  found,  if  fnch  it  were, 
but  in  a  ftyle  of  tragic  pomp,  the  Deity. 
4  On 


C   *3    ] 

On  the  contrary,  I  rather  fhould  have 
wondered,  if  a  man  fo  perfect  as  So- 
crates in  the  art  of  fpeaking,  and  in  the 
due  application  of  proper  terms>  had  faid 
that  the  fneeze  gave  him  the  intimation, 
inflead  of  attributing  it  to  the  Deity.     As 
if  any  one  fhould  fay  that  he  was  wounded 
by  a  dart,  rather  than  with  a  dart,  by  the 
perfon  who  threw  it,  or  that  the  weight 
of  any  thing  is  eftimated  by  the  fcales, 
inftead  of  faying  that  it  is  performed  with 
the  fcales,  by  the  man  who  weighs  with 
them.     For  a  work  is  not  properly   to 
be  afcribed  to  an  inftrument,  but  to  him 
who  poflefTes  the  inftrument,   and  ap- 
plies it  to  its  proper  office-,  and  the  fign, 
in  the  prefent  queftion,  is  the  inftrument 
which  that  power  employs  from  whom 
the  intimation  proceeds  (R)."     What  is 
this  but  the  very  dtftindtion  infifted  upon 
by  Xenophon  ?  that  other  perfons,  though 
they  believed  the  divination  to  proceed 
from  the  gods,  commonly  mentioned  the 
birds,  &c.  as  the  authors  of  it,  confound- 
ing  the   inftrument  of  divination  with 
C  4  the 


[    M    ] 

the  real  agents  in  it;  whereas  Socrates 
was  careful  to  maintain  the  dignity  of 
the  gods,  even  in  his  expreflions,  by 
afcribing  the  whole  to  them. 

What  might  be  the  very  omen  which 
Socrates  confidered  as  inftrumental  in 
the  direction  of  his  affairs,  is  not  an  im- 
portant enquiry,  nor  likely  to  meet  with 
much  fuccefs  (S).  Galaxidorus  re- 
ports that  it  was  the  accidental  fneezing 
of  himfelf  or  friends,  on  one  hand  or 
on  the  other.  That  it  was  fomething 
fimilar  in  its  nature,  feems*-  fupported 
by  very  flrong  authority.  The  reporter 
of  it  in  this  place  is  made  to  fay, 
that  he  had  it  from  a  Megaric  philofo* 
pher(T).  PofTibly  this  was  the  opinion 
of  that  fedr.  in  general  •,  a  feci:  remarkable 
for  its  flrid  and  logical  precifion  in  the 
yfe  of  words.  We  are  told  alfo  that  it  was 
originally  circulated  by  Terpfion,  one  of 
the  few  non-heretical  Socratics,  and  one 
of  thofe  actually  prefent  at  the  death  of 
that  great  man,  as  we  learn  from  the 
Phocdp  of  Plato. 

Thus 


[    *$    ] 

Thus  have  we  dated  and  fupported 
a  very  clear  account ;  namely,  that  the 
divinations  of  Socrates  were  perfectly  ana- 
logous to  thofe  in  common  ufe  at  the 
time  in  which  he  lived  ♦,  but  that  he, 
from  a  fcrupulous  exaclnefs  in  his  expref- 
fions  (and  probably  alfo  with  a  defire  to 
inculcate,  as  frequently  as  poffible,  the 
notion  of  a  conftantly  active  and  fuper- 
intending  Providence)  chofe  rather  to 
refer  his  divination  always  to  its  primary 
and  original  caufe,  the  gods,  than  to  their 
fecondary  and  unconlcious  inftruments, 
the  omens  by  which  it  was  conveyed* 
In  confequence  of  thefe  ideas,  he  ap- 
propriated to  the  fubjecl:  an  expreflion 
which,  firft  the  malice  of  his  enemies, 
and  fi nee  the  miftaken  zeal  of  his* 
friends,  have  wrefted  to  his  difad vantage, 
as  if  he  had  pretended  to  a  communica- 
tion with  fome  attendant  Demon ;  than 
which  nothing  could  be  more  remote 
from  his  ideas  (U).  It  appears,  indeed, 
that  he  conceived  the  particular  fignal  or 
omen  by  which  he  was  directed  to  be 

fomething 


fcmething  in  a  manner  appropriated  to 
himfelf;  or  at  lead  more  accurately 
obferved  and  attended  to  by  him  than  by 
others.  But  in  this  there  is  nothing 
repugnant  to  the  common  notions  of 
prophetic  warnings  in  his  and  every  age, 
nor  in  the  lead  fubverfive  of  what  has 
been  here  advanced.  From  this  repre- 
fentation  of  the  matter,  it  will  appear 
that  there  is,  in  the  hiftory  of  this  extra- 
ordinary man,  nothing  which  can  coun- 
tenance the  vague  and  romantic  notion  of 
attendant  tutelar  Demons  (W);  nor  any 
thing  which  can  in  the  lead  invalidate  our 
conceptions  of  his  ftricl  integrity  and  open 
difpofition :  a  conclufion,  which  every 
lover  of  philofophy  will  doubtlefs  em- 
brace with  pleafure,  if  the  arguments 
and  authorities  which  form  the  founda- 
tion of  it  be  efteemed  of  fufficient 
ftrength. 


NOTES. 


t    *7    J 


NOTES. 


(A)  /^\N  E  of  the  lateft  writers  upon 
\^P  this  fubjedl,  who  may  cer- 
tainly difpute  the  palm  of  diligence  with 
mod  of  his  predecefTors,  has  declared 
himfelf  incapable  of  forming  a  decifion 
upon  it.  His  words  are  thefe  :  "  In  ta'nfa 
itaque  rei  obfcuritate,  et  difficultatum  ex 
utraque  parte  ancipiti  et  gravi  numero, 
certi  quid  definire  tan  turn  non  impofll-- 
bile  eft :  nee  fcrendum  segre  eft,  fi 
cauti,et  ad  regulas  fidei  hiftoricse  attenti 
ledtores  hiftorise  Socraticze,  judicium 
prorfus  fufpendant,  et  hoc  unum  pro- 
nuncient, — non  liquere.     Certe    fi     ulla 

hiflorte 


C   28   ] 

hiftoria  veteris  particula  eft,  quse  quam 
incerta  vetcrum  facta  et  fata  fint,  quam- 
que  dubiam  vetus  hiftoria  legentibus 
fe  offerat,  demonftrat,  hoc  de  genio  So- 
cratis  argumentum  eft,  unde  quam  necef- 
farius  fit  Pyrrhonifnrus  hiftoricus,  fobria 
ratione  inftitutus,  quilibet,  nemine  mo- 
nente,  intelligit."  And  again :  "  Ma- 
lumus  l7Ts%Hvy  quam  vel  ex  una  vel  altera 
parte  audacius  conjiciendo  veritatis  et  ve- 
rifimilitudinis  tranfmigrare  limites :  rati 
et  hoc  in  veteri  hiftoria  prodeffe,  ut  nof- 
camus,  qua?  fciri  nequeant."  Brucker, 
Hijlor.  Crit.  Philof,  par,  II.  lib.  II.  cap. 
II.  §  9.  Another  gives  it  as  his  opinion 
that  it  cannot  ever  be  fettled :  "  Sur 
une  matiere  fi  obfcure,  et  fi  eloignee  de 
nous,  &  qui  depuis  fi  long  terns  eft  en 
contestation,  il  ne  faut  pas  pretendre 
etablir  rien  de  fi  aiTeure  qu'il  ne  refte 
toujours  quelque  doutes  et  quelque  dif- 
ficulties a  combattre."  Charpentiery  Vie 
de  Socrate,p.  115. 

(B)  Of  the  ancients,  Plutarch,  Maxi- 
mus  Tyrius,  and  Apuleius,  have  treated 

exprefsly 


[     29     ] 

exprefsly  of  the  genius  or  demon  of  So- 
crates. Maximus  has  fet  apart  two  dif- 
fertations  for  that  purpofe.  iElian  has 
afligned  a  chapter  to  it  in  his  various 
hiftory;  which  is  however  little  more 
than  a  memorandum  extracted  from  the 
Theages  of  Plato.  Of  the  moderns,  the 
chief  who  have  treated  it  at  large  are 
Olearius,  in  a  differtation  inferted  in  tha 
beft  editions  of  Stanley's  Lives  of  the 
Philofophers ;  M.  Fraguier,  in  the  fourth 
volume  of  the  Memoirs  of  the  French 
Academy  ;  or  the  Choix  des  Memoiree, 
vol.  III.  publifhed  at  London ;  and 
Brucker,  in  his  Critical  Hiftory  of  Philo- 
fophy.  All  the  compilers  of  the  life  of 
Socrates  of  courfe  have  touched  upon 
this  fubjeft,  of  whom  the  chief  are  M. 
Charpentier  in  France,  and  Mr.  Gilbert 
Cooper  in  England.  M.  Rollin  has 
given  to  it  the  fecond  fection  of  ch.  IV. 
b.  IX.  in  his  Ancient  Hiftory,  being  there 
employed  about  the  hiftory  of  this  phi- 
lofopher.  To  give  a  catalogue  of  thofe 
authors  who  have  occafionally  delivered 

their 


[     30     3 

their  fentiments  upon  this  matter,  would 
appear  likeoftentation,  and  could  not  be 
of  any  great  ufe.  Thofe  who  wifh  to  be 
referred  to  them,  will  find  that  defire 
amply  gratified  by  the  learned  authors  of 
the  modern  difiertations  above  men- 
tioned. It  ought  not  to  be  omitted  that 
the  Theages,  and  the  Apology  of  Plato, 
are  the  parts  of  his  works  where  informa- 
tion is  chiefly  to  be  fought.  Mention  is 
alfo  made  of  the  Socratic  divination  in 
the  Euthyphron,  the  Theastetus,  and  per- 
haps elfewhcre.  Cicero  copies  from 
Plato  his  account  of  it ;  and  from  him 
we. learn  that  Antipater  of  Tarfus  had 
made  a  large  collection  of  the  divinations 
of  Socrates :  but  the  work  is  loft.  So 
ample  reference  will  be  made  hereafter 
to  the  writings  of  Xenophon,  that  it  is 
unnecefTary  to  fay  any  thing  in  this  place 
of- his  authority  in  the  decifion  of  this 
queltion. 

(C)  It  is  indeed  mentioned  by  Ori- 
gen  contra  Celf.  p.  280.  (edit.  Cantab.) 
that  the  whole  account  was  by  fome  in 

his 


[     3*     1 

his  days  dilbelieved.  But  though  thefc 
incredulous  perfons  are  there  treated  as 
calumniators,  I  do  not  recoiled" -that 
they  are  faid  to  have  accompanied  their 
unbelief  with  a  farcafm  fo  illiberal. 

(D)     The  Platonic  notions  of  demons 
are  pretty  generally  known.     Thofe  to 
whom  any  information  upon  that  fubje& 
may  happen  to  be  neceflary,  will  meet 
with  it  abundantly  in  the  XVth  difTerta- 
tion  of  Maximus  Tyrius  (edit.  Reilke), 
in  which  it  is  endeavoured  to  be  proved, 
that  fuch  agents  as  demons  are  fuppofed 
to  be,  muft  neceflarily  cxift,  to  preferve 
the  chain  of  beings  unbroken.     That  the 
departed  fouls  of  good  men  were  fup- 
pofed to  hold  this  rank  and  office,  we 
learn  in  Plutarch's  treatife,  already  cited, 
By  the  vifion  of  Timarchus  the  Chaero- 
nean,  in  the  Cave  of  Trophonius,  we  are 
informed  that  fouls  differ  in  their  degree 
of  union  with  the  body  5  that  fome  are 
entirely  immerfed  in  it  5  but  that  others 
have  a  pure  part  floating   without,   of 
more  or  lefs  magnitude,  which  is  unaf- 
fected 


C  32  ] 

fe&ed  by  the  paflions  :  this  is  by  men  in 
general  called  wfc  but  by  thofe  who  are 
rightly  intruded,  the  demon.  It  is  eafy 
to  fee,  through  the  veil  of  this  allegory, 
an  opinion  very  fimilar  to  that  which  fup- 
pofes  the  demon  of  Socrates  to  mean  his 
understanding  only. 

(E)     Namely,  Tertullian,  Laclantius, 
and    Minucius  Felix.     Fortunately,  M. 
Dacier  was  certain  that  the  contrary  was 
true.     Une  marque  certain  que  Socrate  a 
ete  v entablement  conduit  par  un  bon  ge- 
nie, c'elt  qu'il  a  ete  toute  fa  vie  pieufe, 
temperant  et  jufte  •,  qu'il  a  toujours  pris 
le  bon  parti  en  tout,  qu'il  n'a  jamais  fait 
tort  a  perfonne,  qu'il  a  toujours  fait  la 
guerre  au  vice,    et    combattu  les  fauffes 
religions ,  et  qu'il  a  travaille  toute  fa  vie 
a  rendre  les  hommes  plus  gens  de  bien, 
et  a  leur  faire  connoitre  la  verite  et  la 
juftice.     Toute  la  difficulte  eft  de  fa  voir 
comment  ce  genie  fe  faifoit  entendre  a 
lui,    &c.     Argument   de  VApologie^   &c. 
To  this  latter  aflertion  the  learned  author 
will   perhaps  find   as    many   diffentient 
5  readers 


[     33     ] 

readers  as  to  the  former.  But  he  appears 
to  have  been  in  a  very  pofitive  temper 
of  mind  when  he  wrote  the  argument  in 
queftion,  for  he  tells  us  immediately  after, 
H  ecoit  fans  doute  une  infpiration."  It 
may  not  be  amifs  to  obierve,  that  M.  Da- 
cier  founded  this  implicitbelief,  on  a  text 
of  Scripture,  which  by  no  means  leads  to 
all  that  he  would  deduce  from  it,  atleaft 
not  necefTarily;  namely,  Math.  XVIII. 
10.  fee  Camero  and  Groiius  on  the  place. 
Whitby  fays,  "  I  do  not  think  that  the 
opinion  concerning  one  particular  angel 
having  the  cuflody  of  one  foul  as  his 
charge,  hath  any  good  foundation  in  the 
holy  Scriptures."  The  paffage  in  the 
Acts,  ch.  XII.  v.  15.  certainly  proves  no 
more  than  that  the  perfons  to  whom  the 
appearance  of  St.  Peter  was  related,  were 
prepofTefTed  with  that  opinion. 

(F)  Olearius  fays,  "  Ne  tamen  quod 
unicoPlatonis  teftimoniohactenus  niti  vi- 
detur,  inter  fabulas  rejiciendum  penitus 
efle  aliquis  exiftimet,  cum  et  alia  multa  de 
Socrate  credatur  finxiiTe,  &  negleda  So- 
D  cratica 


C    34     ] 

cratica  fimplicitate  ad  Pythagoricas  rrag* 
'joXoyictg,  &  /Egyptiorum  commenta  (quod 
acerbe  in  Epiftola  ad  /Eichinem  repre- 
hendit  Xenophon)  fuerit  proclivior. 
Ipjum  qucque  aud remits  Xcnophonlcm, 
pur'icrl:  doctrines  Socratica  feci  at  or  em 
aq&rrimum"  De  Genio  Sec.  §  4.  The 
pafTage  above  alluded  to,  in  Xenophon's 
Epiftie,  is  this:  to  is  xa/2v  eifae  Alyuifl* 
jjpoKrthp'MVj  Xj  TY,g  Ylu^ccyoc^  TcpenmssSQ  tc'Ilocc, 

U)V  TO  7T.-p/T/0V  PC,  [A'/J  \J.0.lUm  :.7Tl  XoOKpcffH 
YlXr/^zV  tpC£  TVQMOttOOCi    TCj    G&fl    QifclTYfe  >.L7Y,g, 

Occafion  will  be  taken,  in  a  future  note, 
to  (hew,  that  the  authority  of  Plato  in  this 
matter,  is  not  fo  very  oppofite  to  the 
opinion  which  I  attribute  to  Xenophon., 
as  by  vicious  interpretation,  and  the  fanav- 
ticifm  of  his  followers,  it  has  been  majie. 
Olearius,  with  all  his  fhew  of  deference 
for  Xenophon,  adopts  implicitly  the  Pla- 
tonic dogma. 

(G)  In  particular,  it  has  been  generally 
•fuppoied,  upon  the  a  (Tertian  of  Plato, 
that  the  fignal  attendant  unon   Socrates 

acted 


£    35    ] 

a&eddifFuafively  alone,  v-,  C/V.  de  DivinA. 
§  4.  whereas  Xenophon  introduces  Eu- 
thydemus,  faying  to  him,  wg&rtfftaitiiff  cot 
A  T-  %$  kcihv  xj  <x  pj.  Mem.  IV.  3. 
§  12.  which  Socrates  does  not  contradict. 
With  this,  one  of  the  accounts  in  Plu- 
tarch's treatife  agrees,  for  it  is  there  faid, 
that  if  the  iignal  came  to  him  in  one  way, 
he  proceeded  in  what  he  was  doing,  if 
in  another,  he  defiited ;  but  this  is  con- 
nected with  an  hypothefis  which  ptefently 
will  be  more  fully  explained. 

(H)  The  duke  de  Sully;  fee  his  Me- 
moires,  liv.  II.  an.-n.  1580,  1585,  and 
elfewhere.  Richlie^u  and  Mazarin  kept 
an  aftrologer  in  pay.  See  Warton  en 
Pope,  vol,  II.  p.  1 87.  Marfilius  Ficinus 
was  thought  by  Politian  worthy  of  this 
,€ncomia£tic  epitaph : 

u  Mores,  ingeaium,  mufas,  fophiam- 
que  fu  pre  mam, 
Vis  uno  dicam  nomine? — 

; —  MaRSILIUS." 

P2  Yet 


[     36     ] 

Yet  was  this  man  fo  befotted  with  Pla* 
tonifm,  aftrology,  and  demonology,  as  to 
give  us  the  following  nonfenfe,  by  way  of 
commentary  on  the  apology  of  Plato. 
"  Si  quaeras  qualis  Socratis  daemon 
fuerit,  refpondebitur  igneusy  quoniam  ad 
cpntemplationem  fublimium  erigebar. 
Item  Saturnius,  quoniam  intentionein 
mentis  quotidie  mirum  in  modum  abiti  a- 
hebat  a  corpore ;  non  provocabat  un- 
quam,  quia  non  Nari'ia$>  fed  fepe  ab  ac- 
tion i bus  revocabat,  quia  Salurnius.  But 
a  far  more  eminent  inftance  occurs  to 
me,  which  I  cannot  prevail  upon  my  fdf 
to  wichrhold.  The  character  of  the 
great  Varro  for  learning  and  abilities  has 
been  acknowledged  in  every  age,  2nd 
requires  no  new  encomium  to  let  it  oft. 
Who  then  would  fuppofe,  that  this  wife 
and  acute  chronologer,  in  an  age  when 
the  Romans  were  beginning  to  rife  above 
the  follies  of  their  popular  theology, 
could  have  been  weak  enough  to  employ 
his  friend  Tarutiu?,  to  call  the  nativity 

not 


C    37    3 

not"  only  of  Romulus  but  of  Rome  itfelf? 
Yet  that  he  did  fo,  we  are  authorised 
by  Plutarch  to  afiert.  Fit.  Rcniul. 
%  12.  He  directed  that  it  fnould  be 
done  bv  a  kind  of  analytic  aftrologv,  be- 
cauie,  he  laid,  it  rnufl  belong  to  the  fame 
art  to  predict  future  fortunes  from  known 
nativities,  and  to  difcover  nativities  un- 
known from  fortunes  recorded  by  hiltory. 
The  refult  of  this  curious  procefs  was  ad- 
mitted by  this  great  man  in  his  chrono- 
logical writing  as  a  decided  fact.  Ci- 
cero,  who  was  likewife  intimate  with  Ta- 
rn tius,  faw  more  clearly  into  the  matter, 
and  thus  ridicules  his  fuperftitious  enqui- 
-  ry ,  "  O  vim  maxumam  erroris !  etiamhe 
urbis  natalis  dies  ad  lunam  et  ftellas 
pertinebat  ?  &c."  BeBivih  II.  47.  In 
the  fame  chapter  he  fubjoins  fome  noto- 
rious inftances  of  the  fallibility  of  thefe 
admirers  of  the  Cbaldaic  aftrology.  The 
loth  lection  of  Olearius's  dirleftation 
will  fupply  more  ctirious  inftances  of  fu- 
ptrfiition  in  fofne  who  ought  to  have 
.bsv?n  wlfer. 

p  3  (i)  w;T 


[    3«    ] 

(I)  Why  Socrates  refrained  from  mi- 
nute enquiries  upon  theological  fubjedls, 
Xenophon  will  inform  us,  who,  in  the 
Kpillle  to  JEfchines,  fpeaks  the  very  lan- 
guage of  his  mailer  concerning  it.  'Or* 
[xsv  ydp  toc  Bhcc  V7r=^  riy<&$,  'c&avji  &i?.ov» 
KTri'xpy}  Si  i'2  Komjovt  rtj$  Hhjvu^-ujs  aviag 

<t'£hV.        Clot  Si    fi(TlVj  27i  iV^HV  pXOtOV,  OYTE 

ZHTEIN   0EM1TON.    $syz*p    W$p 

fv<riv  yj  zvpu^iv  $£teg  S«  elhv&i,  olg  &SiK 
tjKsov  VTrypsciccf  ttpocryjXH*  §  3.  Both 
Cudworth  and  his  annotator  Mofheim, 
confider  Socrates  as  a  Polytheift.  Intell. 
Sjft.  cap.  4.  §  23. 

(K)  The  fad  is  this,  While  Xeno- 
phon was  yet  in  doubt  whether,  at  the  in- 
ftance  of  his  friend  Proxenus,  he  fhould 
join  himfelf  to  that  expedition  which 
he  afterwards  fo  finely  related,  he  afked 
the  advice  of  his  friend  and  instructor; 
but  Socrates,  inftead  of  offering  an  opinion 
of  his  own,  recommended  that  he  fhould 
enquire  of  the  Delphic  oracle.  His 
pupil,  Simulated  by  youthful  and  mili- 
tary ardour,  did  not  choofe  to  hazard  the 
receiving  a  difiuafive  anfwer,  and  there* 

fore 


C    39    ] 

fore  enquire  J,  not  whether  he  fhould  go 
or  flay,  but  in  what  manner  he  fhould 
undertake  the  journey.  But  Socrates, 
when  he  hesrd  it,  by  no  means  approved 
his  conduct,  not  thinking  it  right  to  have 
embarked  in  lb  important  an  undertak- 
ing, without  the  previous  fanclion  of  d> 
vine  approbation.  Xcn.  Anal.  III.  c.  i. 
§5.  Diog  Laert.  in  Xen.  §  4  &  5.  It  may 
ferve  in  fome  meafure  to  ftrengthen  the 
argument,  if  we  confider  that  this  bed 
difciple  of  Socrates  is  faid  to  have  been 
hTtafelf  ev<r£ri$  £  (f/Xofor/fS,  %,  hpnoc  ha.* 
yvocvai  iKocyj;.  Laeri,  which  indeed  appears 
abundantly  from  his  narrative  of  his  own 
tran factions.  In  the  character  of  his 
fictitious  Cyrus  he  feems  to  have  been 
defirous  to  work  up  all  that  he  conceived 
of  good  and  great;  and  has  therefore, 
in  many  parts  of  that  elegant  compo- 
fition,  the  Cyrorcedia,  interwoven  the 
principles,  and  even  the  words  ofSocrate?. 
Yet  to  Cyrus  he  hasafcribed  a  Heady  faith 
in  the  Pagan  Theology,  and  has  made  him, 
in  his  very  lateft  hours,  return  thanks  to 
the  gods  for  having  fhewn  him  always 
D  4  h 


C    4°    ] 

tsgotv  g,  i,  &  ipctrioig  o-yijjL&oig,  ^  h  o!ouvo7s,  %,  h 

(L)  For  the  reafon,  among  many 
others,  afTigned  by  Plutarch  in  the  begin- 
ning of  his  Platonic   queftions,    «   yu% 

tipun>svof/.svog  re  xcci  vrat^ocy  Tff^wre'/j^rulo  av 

(M)  Some  time  ago  I  collected,  and 
have  now  by  me,  abundant  proof  that 
the  words  0  &wg,  ol  &so\  ro  Qhcv,  to 
iuiyimov,  are,  in  the  ufage  of  Xenophonf 
and  many  other  writers,  perfectly  fyno- 
nymous.  But  the  point  is  fo  plain,  that 
I  cannot  perfuade  myfelf  it  can  ever 
be  controverted  :  I  (hall  therefore  fpare 
myfelf  the  trouble  of  tranicribing  thofe 
memorandums^  Let  thofe  who  think 
otherwife  look  only  as  far  as  the  begin- 
ning of  the  8th  fection  of  the  chapter  fo 
often  quoted,  and  fee  there  in  whatfenfe 
the  word  luipoviov  was  underflood  by  Xe- 
nophon.     L.  I.  cap.  1. 

(N)  The  original  paflage  is  as  follows  : 
The  words  in  parenthefes  in  the  tranflation 
are  inferted  for  the  fake  of  perfpicuity. 


C     41     ] 

ci<zj£$pv?\\'/jjc  yap,  cog  'par/}  Hwy.£MT'/,gy  TO 
AAIMONION  EATTA  2HMAINEIN 
oSsy  d/j  K,  ^.otKigu  (xoi  co?:a<riv  wuiqv  umaa-a.- 
(jbcct   Kcciycl  Ic/AfJLoyiu  «cr<£fp£/y< — O  Ji    iVzv 

XUlVGTcLQV  fi(T-(p'GS  7UJV  aXXcvV,  O'JQL  IJiO'-vjlK^V 
ICjjJCo^SC,    ClOO/GiC   Ti    %uCAj£]ai>     KUl    <P'/jfJL<Zigy  7L 

criyxScAo/c,  X,  Qvo-iaig*  krom  y<xg  ^ttqKoi'^ 
w,air;9  »  Tag  op:ihccc9  ads  Tag  c/yp.ocv\'jov\ug 
eidSH&t  toc  arv pL^cvpx.  Toig  ^o^\svoy.zyoigy  oiKKcl 
lag  Bmg  oia  rarccy  wjtu  (TY\^LaivHv»  KA- 
KEINOS  OTTOS  ENOMIZEN.     'AAA* 

o)     [J.iV      7T\figGt     (pCCCtV      V770      T-     TMy     OpviSsOt 

\      ~      >       1  '  1        '         '        r    '       \     '   n  ■ 

Tic^ai.  2QKPATH2  AE  hSDEP 
ErirNHSKEN,  OTTOS  EAETE.  TO 
AAIMONION  FA?E$H  2HMAINEIN. 
Memorabilia,  lib.  I.  cafe  I.  §  2.  &c. 

If  any  perfon  doubt  the  aflertion  about 
the  argument,  let  him  endeavour  to  pur 
it  together  according  to  the  words  of 
any  modern  tranflation  whatever.  Ac- 
cording; to  the  bed  that  our  country  has 
produced,  it  (lands,  if  I  mifta'ke  not, 
thus:  "  Socrates  was  faid  to  declare  that 
his  Genius  gave  him  intimations  of  the 
future;  but  lq  this  he  aiTerted  nothing 

new. 


[      42       ] 

new,  nor  departed  from  the  general 
opinion  •,  for  the  generality  imagine  them* 
felves  to  be  directed  in  their  divinations 
by  the  gods>  and  he,  by  internal  confciouf* 
nefs,  which  he  chofe  to  call  his  genius." 
Which  two  things  are  as  far  as  poflible 
from  being  the  fame,  unlefs  my  .notions 
of  identity  are  Angularly  incorrect  Sub* 
ilitute  my  interpretation,  and  ail  is  plain: 
u  they  think  themfelves  to  be  directed 
by  the  gods,  and  be  likewife ;  in  declar- 
ing which  he  ufually  employed  the 
phrafe,  70  impim? ;  and  from  the  ambi* 
guity  of  this,  occafion  was  taken  to 
form  an  accufation  again  ft  him." 

(O)  YL&ivd  ys  {j.Yjv  ^ouyLOvia  'zzoog  &v 
lyw  HcrtyzpoiiAi  Kzyuiv,  on  ©EOT  ^h  (pCOVYl 
(pcuvsjczi  (TviiJLcciviicroc  ,o,  ri  yprj  zpoihv;  — 
*AhXa,  jj^vJoi    *)     to    WfoaS&Ui     yi  TON 

©EON     TO     JJL-XXOV,      it      TO    i&pQ0TJfJt4jyV&V    CO 

fakhr^ou,  ^  TdTo  ooo-7T$p  tyoj  fajju,  xtoo  Tzrdvjss 
£  hiy&rt  ^  vopi£xcriy*  dK7^  61  jtsv  olocvig  re,  £, 
QYiy^S,  Xj  vvi&iteg  ts,  £  jjuiv]&g  cyopdgtsrtv 
Txg  zTpooyjuaiwjctg  Svat,  eyco  5„:  TOTTO 

A.CCIUW10V     K0lhJ*y      KCCl      Ot^lCil     tSTOtig     ONO* 


C     43     ]         , 

ynv  tHjif  toi;  q^vliiv  ccyccjiS&ijoov  ty^v  TflN 
GEQN  ouvoljj.iv*  Xe?i,  Apoh  Socr.  §  I2v£sfe. 
On  reviewing  this  paffage,  I  am  not  cer- 
tain whether  it  be  not  (till  more  plain  in 
the  original  words  than  in  my  tranflation. 
It  is  worth  remarking,  that  in  the  8th 
feet  ion  of  the  fame  apology,  Socrates 
fpeaking  of  the  fame  matters,  ufes  cl  ©Si 
in  Head  of  to  dcnuovicv,     ^Q(Bi&£  oi  ol  Gtol 

(P)  This  treatife  is  perhaps  one  of  the 
molt  elegant  models  that  time  has  fpared. 
Befides  the  difcourfes  concerning  So- 
crates, which  are  interefting  and  curious^ 
it  contains  a  circumftantial  and  a  very 
ftriking  account  of  a  mod  important  re- 
volution in  Thebes.  It  is  delivered  by 
one  of  the  principal  actors  in  it,  and 
contains  fome  very  mafterly  ftrokes  of 
dramatic  conduct,  and  fome  admirable 
traits  of  that  extraordinary  man  Epa- 
minondas.  He  who  can  read  without 
emotion  the  account  of  the  confirmation 
.into  which  the  confpirators  afTembled  at 
the  houfe  of  Charon  were  thrown,  on  his 
5  being 


[     44     ] 

being  fent  for  by  the  tyrants  ;  his  offer  of 
his  fon  as  a  pledge  of  his  fidelity;  and  the 
heroical  behaviour  of  that  brave  youth  ; 
mud  have  lels  feeling  than  he  ought  to 
have. 

(  Q^)  Though  we  fhould  fuppofe  that 
a  fneeze  was  the  very  omen  employed  by 
Socrates,  his  expreflion  concerning  it 
would  have  nothing  in  it  very  extraor- 
dinary. Ariftotle  fays,  to-j  zfjczpjja^  ©£C\ 
rr/x^oi,  TrobL  §  XXXIII.  cap.  7.  and 
we  find  it  confidered,  by  Xenophon  and 
his  whole  army,  in  no  very  different  light. 
Tsto  S«  "hiyovjog  at/r»,  'ufja.pvvjaiTiq*  ceiixa-avjag 
m  61  ggccTiccTcziy  ziravjsg  \jacc,  cp^y}  ZBrfxxflS* 
xvy/jo-av  tov  Qsov.  Xj  &vJb$caP  eurs,  Aokh 
fact)  cti  cwfysg,  Itth  w%pl  <ruj-/j^foig  q}i6ov 
fcyovjwv  oiumg  ix  Aiog  ts  Xourr^og  stymy, 
tv^cwOcit  TCd  ®£'2  vkz'jdy  Svchv  croujr^ioc,  Sec. 
Xen.  Anab.  lib.  III.  The  learned  arch- 
bifhop  Potter  appears  to  have  admitted 
this  conjecture  as  a  facl :  "  Socrates  him- 
felf,  though  a  great  defpifer  of  Heathen 
JuperjUtion^  judged  it  not  unreaibnable  to 
make  a  fneeze  ferve  as  an  admonition 

from 


[     45     ] 

from  the  demon  which  always  attended 
him."  ArcbaoL  B.  II.  cb,  17,  where  the 
fubject  of  fneezing,  confidered  as  an 
omen,  is  treated  at  large  with  great 
learning.  It  appears  that  in  the  time  of 
Homer  fneezing  was  reckoned  altogether 
a  fortunate  omen.  See  Odyjf.  17.  /.  542. 
&c*  We  may  obferve,  by  the  way, 
an  odd  mixture  of  ideas  in  the  paffage 
above  cited  from  Potter.  He  feems  to 
admit  that  the  fage  was  really  attended 
by  a  demon,  yet  he  fuppofes  that  he,  and 
not  the  demon,  fixed  upon  the  fignal 
whereby  their  intercourfe  was  main* 
tained  5  this  feems  ftrange,  and  dill  he 
regards  him  as  untin&ured  with  fuper- 
ftition. 

(R)  M=t«/x;  yot$>  y$y\  zvpog  <rs ,  Z  ricxu/xv/, 

ettpzAfia  jxaKigcc  S^  (piXocrcpictv  iPavipumi- 
(Fccvjogf  h  fx>]  zfjoipiJLOv,  [£?}$£  x\y$owf  to  try,- 
fjiHov,  aXha,  Tpozyixug  Txrayv  to  Sczifxcvicv 
WYOjACtfa.  iyu)  yot^  av  txvc&vtiov  i9civu.a?cv 
dvlpog  ux^a  o*ici?.iy$<r9GU,  ^  Kpccjflv  QVOpctTOCV, 
i&Hrty  YMxp(y.T%>   h   pvj   to   lai^ovtoy  uKka, 

TQ'J 


[     4* 


n 


a  tic  vtto   t£  [£iX%g  (potty  t:-tpu.\7ocii,  y;r    r« 

f3&gcg  •  Jtto  t5  £uy8,  f&l  t^j  y>yo3  uVo  t& 
IgavTog*  «  y#£  7«  c£y#;-#  to  spyov,  &AA  8  *L 
70  Qp}owov9  co  yjjT{icu  t&(>qc  to  tpycv.  Opy&VQV 
Si  7/  £  to  CYjfjLHOv,  co  y^v^ai  to  cryj par, -cv. 
Z)*  G^»w  Seer. p.  301.  £V/.  Keljle, 

(S)  To  gratify  our  curiofity  concernr 
ing  the  omen  by  which  Socrates  was 
guided  we  have  little  or  no  light ;  but  it 
may  be  fome  confolation,  under  that  dis- 
appointment, to  recollect  that  the  conr 
temporaries  and  even  the  auditors  of  our 
philofopher?  were  pretty  much  in  the 
fame  cafe.  If  we  may  credit  what  Plu- 
tarch makes  Simmias  the  Theban  declare 
as  the  re f ult  of  hjs  own  experience, 
was  not  eafy  then  to  gain  information 
upon  the  fubjecl:,  even  from  the  fage 
himfelf:    aCrcg  Si   (0  Hipploig)  1&jLpmr% 

filjv   tp>]    KSTSPt    TXT00V   S^QJASriS   TTOTc,   ^7}  TIS/JHY 

6t7rox.pi<r£Mg,  Sio  jLojS'  aZ^ic  chvQotf  woTOwKif 
i  ly/fiv  Sfdot  ityl  7\^ov]o'.£}  &&&;&$  vf/v^u). 


[    47    3 

7o7g  S'  ccx.S<reii  iiwq  <£wj%,  ttfwiypv\i  ?ov  vSvM 
Kf  ^i<xrnv»Qcivop£vcid  y*fot  cr7rg5jj£.  Flut,  torn* 
VIII.  f.  324.  Ed.  Rei/ke.  Whence,  fays 
he,  we  concluded  that  this  demon  was 
fomething  of  the  nature  of  a  voice.  The 
referve  of  Socrates  upon  this  point  feems 
to  indicate  fome  degree  of  diffidence  in- 
ternally felt  concerning  it,  fuch  as  would 
naturally  arife  in  a  mind  wherein  much 
good  fenfe  and  fome  fuperftition  were  in- 
timately blended  together.  His  eager* 
nefs  to  enquire  of  thofe  who  profeffed  to 
have  enjoyed  (imilar  communications, 
appears  to  be  the  act  of  one  feeking 
earneflly  for  a  complete  confirmation  of 
fome  ideas  predominant  in  his  imagination, 
which  as  yet  he  felt  occafionally  difturbed 
by  doubts.  Of  this  conduct  in  him  we 
find  a  flrong  inflance.  When  the  extra- 
ordinary  narration  of  Timarchus  was  re- 
peated to  him,  he  was  difpleafed  that  he 
had  not  been  told  of  it  while  it  was 
poflible  to  examine  the  young  man  him- 
felf  upon  it :  tfju^ccjo  f^ag,  fays  Sim* 
rnias,  hi  prj,  ^cofjeg  hi  t5  T^#p%«,  ^rfoBo- 


[     48     ] 

£  ?xrpo<ravMk£yKi  cctfpsgipbr     Thefe,   how- 
ever, are  conjectures  only,  and  defer ve 
no  greater  weight.     If  indeed   we  rely 
upon  the  information  of  Plato,  the  matter 
is  decided,  fo  far  at  lead  as  this,  that  it 
Was  a  voice.     Whether   it  was   his  for- 
tune to   meet  with   Socrates  in  a  more 
communicative    humour,     or    whether 
he  wilhed   to  give   weight  to  the  con- 
jecture  of    the     Socratics,    by    putting 
it  into  the  mouth  of  their  matter  himfelf, 
is  no  very  nccettary  enquiry.     The  rife 
of  the  opinion  among  his  friends  that  he 
was  really  attended   by  a  demon,  is  well 
marked    by    Olearius.      His   words  are 
thefe :  "  Et  fane  vix  dubito  inter  Socra- 
ticos  de  geniofuo  verba  facientcm  Socra- 
tem  audientes,  plerofque  de  media  qua- 
dem  inter  Deos  et  homines  natura,  cujus 
nutu  ille  regeretur,  id    accepiflc.     Sane 
enim  recentibus  adhuc  Pythagoras,  Em- 
pedoclis,  et  ejus  generis  philofophorum 
dogmatibus,   afifuetse  erant  eorum   aures 
ejufmodi  doftrinse,     Ut  taceam  amorem 

ec 


[    49     ] 

ct  exiftimationem,  qua  difcipuli  pra*- 
ceptores  plerumque  profequuntur,  facile 
ilium,  fenfum  verborum  Socratis  ipfis 
perfuafifTe,  qui  honori  praceptoris  maxi- 
tne  conducere  videretur.  De  Platone 
fane  ex  illis,  qua?  hactenus  diximus,  om- 
nibus manifeftum  eft,  eum  vel  ita  fenfifte, 
vel  aliis  ut  ita  fentirent,  perluadere  vo- 
luifle.  Eumque  fequitur  tota  recen- 
tiorum  Platonicorum  fchola,  qua3  valde 
in  dignitate  hujus  genii,  aliifque  quas  ad 
eum  pertinent  celebrandis,  eft  ingeniofa. 

§  7-  .  -  „        „ 

(T)  The  Greek  is  Msy«£/x£?  Ttvog  tyKuvoi* 

Pint,  VIII.  p.  ig6.  which  fignifies  not  a 

Megarenfian  or  a  perfon  of  Megara,  as  it 

is  uiually  tranflated,  but  a  Megaric  phi- 

lolbpher,   of  the  fed:  of   Euclides  ;  the 

confufion  has  arifen  from  the  fubfequent 

mention  of  Terpfion,    who  is  known  to 

have    been    of    that    country.     Hence 

the  conjecture  of  Reifke,  who  for  T*£- 

xjj'twvog  8i  Ivmvo$  would  read  Tsp-^iwv  Si  Jy, 

lofes    its   foundation  :     it    is    indeed    on 

many  accounts  exceptionable.     The  na- 

E  tional 


[    jo    3 

tional  word  is  Miyapevc.  We  find  them 
together  in  this  fentence,  M;yapixv,$ 
(zpgc'sgY}')  EwiAslo'/js  MeJfrga^.  Diog.  Laet  t* 
Proam. 

(U)  It  may,  as  I  have  already  hinted, 
.be  doubted  whether  Plato  really  differed 
in  opinion  from  Xenophon  concerning 
it.  In  his  Tbeages  it  is  thus  fpoken  of, 
"  if  it  be  pleafing  to  the  Divinity  (lo:v 
pev  tw  Osti  q.iAovn)  you  will,  O  Theagcs, 
make  great  and  rapid  improvement, 
otherwife  not."  The  following  is  the 
paflage  in  that  dialogue  on  which  the 
principal  flrefs  is  laid;  &$t  yap  Tl  ®hoz 
fj,oipa,  -zrczpc7rojjL£vov  l^ol  m  zsouooq  dp^afj/zvov 
AAIMONION*  ESTI  AE  TOTTO  &% 

NH,   7\%     OTOiV  ySV'/j]oClt    C/.H  [JiOl  <rs\[UX,ivH%     6  U'J 

jutiAAw  'uypujjciVy  txtx  dvro^p07r-/jv*  *&$qpcH  d= 

y3i7rO/S.  ty  cOiV  Tig  jJ.01  TOOV  (plKWJ  MVKXOlVWTOtl 
Tly    X<  yivfljotl    ij    <pwn]t    TOiVTOV  TX70  OCTTol^TTcl, 

£,  xk  la  Ts-pocTJstv.  Had  he  thought  any 
thing  of  a  genius,  would  he  not  rather 
have  faid,  "  ibis  advifes  me  by  a  voice" 
than  "  ibis  is  a  voice?"  The  whole  evi- 
dently points  to  fome  naturally  infigni- 
5  fie  ant 


[    *»    3 

iicant  fouhd.  The  following  expreftions, 
which  all  occur  in  Plato's  apology,  Teem 
to  point  almoftexclufively  to  the  prefent 
hypothefis*     y   mOtju    p&i  MANTIKH, 

V>    7H  $Mj*QVl£, TO   TOT  ©EOT  (TYl^LHOV, 

to  f-iyjvog  g-'/juhcv. — OEION  ri,  ?£  S&^usy/cy. 
It  is  true  that  in  the  fame  piece  he  fpeaks 
of  it  as  fomething  wonderful  and  pecu- 
liar to  himfelf  •,  but  an  uncommon  warn- 
ing, lingular  from  the  regularity  or  fre- 
quency of  its  recurrence,  might  eafily  be 
iuppcfed  to  have  been  conveyed  in  an 
ordinary  manner,  or  in  fome  way  at  leaft 
analogous  to  the  common  omens.  So  in 
the  Theages,  where  we  Mnd  ij  Sv^ixig  avri] 
in  oaiucyiz  tztz,  may  we  not  fairly  fub- 
ftitute  r£  0i5  ***?*,  as  equivalent,  a  ;d  un- 
derhand it  of  the  divine  power  in  general, 
inftead  of  tranflating  it  "  the  power  of 
this  demoji ?"  I  would  afk  any  attentive 
reader  of  the  Ph^edo,  what  conclufion  he 
can  draw  from  the  account  there  given  by 
Socrates  of  his  reafons  for  undertaking 
to  compofe  verfes,  and  of  the  choice  of 
his  fubjecW  I  can/ee  nothing  in  it  but 

E 2  a  moll: 


C   $%   ] 

a  mod  fcrupulous  attention  to  the  fup* 
pofed  divine  admonition, and  a  defiremofl 
ftrongly  to  propitiate  Apollo.  More 
might  eafily  be  faid  upon  this  fubjedt, 
but  it  feems  unneceflary.  I  will  add 
only,  that  if  there  are  in  Plato's  writings 
anypaflages  which  will  admit  of  no  con- 
flruclion  but  fuch  as  favours  the  notion 
of  a  demon  in  this  matter,  either  I  have 
not  ever  met  with  them,  or  have  fuffered 
them  to  pafs  me  unnoticed.  I  confefs,  I 
have  not  very  accurately  fought  them, 
thinking  it  needlefs  to  fupport  fo  (Irong 
an  evidence  as  has  been  adduced,  by  the 
concurrence  of  a  weaker  teftimony. 

(W)  If  the  opinion  of  the  reality  of 
Socrates's  demon  were  flill  prevalent,  it 
might  be  requifite  to  fay  fomething 
againft  the  argument  which  might  be 
deduced  for  its  fupport,  from  the  boafted 
veracity  of  his  predictions,  which  we 
find  afierted  even  by  Xenophon.  Me- 
morab*  L  I.  c.  i .  The  infpiration  of  the 
Delphic  oracle  might  be  defended  upon 
the  fame  ground.     Infallibility  is  eafily 

claimed, 


C     53     3 

claimed,  and  is  maintained  without  much 
difficulty,  fo  long  as  the  tafk  of  interpre- 
tation remains  in  the  hands  of  prejudice 
and  fuperftition.  Nor  is  it  by  any  means 
neceflary  that  impofture  fhould  bear  a 
part  in  fuch  pretentions,  the  firft  deceit  of 
thele  pretenders  is  often  pra&ifed  upon 
themfelves.  Euthyphron  makes  a  fimi- 
lar  claim  in  the  dialogue  which  bears  his 
name,  and  probably  from  a  fimilar 
caufe. 


F    I    N    I    S, 


C    49     ] 

ct  exiftimationem,  qua  difcipuli  pra- 
ceptores  plerumque  profequuntur,  facile 
ilium,  fenfum  verborum  Socratis  ipfis 
perfuafifTe,  qui  honori  prasceptoris  maxi- 
me  conducere  videretur.  De  Platone 
fane  ex  illis,  quae  hactenus  diximus,  om- 
nibus manifeftum  eft,  eum  vel  ita  renfiire, 
vel  aliis  ut  ita  fentirent,  perluadere  vo- 
luifle.  Eumque  fequitur  tota  recen- 
tiorum  Platonicorum  fchola,  quse  valde 
in  dignitate  hujus  genii,  aliifque  quae  ad 
eum  pertinent  celebrandis,  eft  ingeniofa. 

(T)  The  Greek  is  MzyagiKx  mog  YiKtsa-ot* 
Flut.  VIII.  p.  296.  which  fignifies  not  a 
Megarenfian  or  a  perfon  of  Megara,  as  it 
is  utually  tranflated,  but  a  Megaric  phi- 
lofopher,  of  the  feci  of  Euclides ;  the 
confufion  has  ariien  from  the  fubfequent 
mention  of  Terpficn,  who  is  known  to 
have  been  of  that  country.  Hence 
the  conjecture  of  Reifke,  who  for  Ts£- 
\Jjiuvcg  Se  Inilvcg  would  read  T^\&nt  Ss  fy3 
lofes  its  foundation :  it  is  indeed  on 
many  accounts  exceptionable.  The  na- 
E  tional 


C  50  ] 

tional  word  is  Msyaxvg,  We  find  them 
together  in  this  fentence,  Msyc&ptMfc. 
(jff^osgYi)  EvKXi&sjs  Mc-Ftx^svg,  Diog.  haerU 
Fro  am. 

(U)  It  may,  as  I  have  already  hinted, 
be  doubted  whether  Plato  really  differed 
in  opinion  from  Xenophon  concerning 
it.  In  his  Theages  it  is  thus  fpoken  of, 
<c  if  it  be  pleafing  to  the  Divinity  {lav 
pw  76o  Qecp  $i\ov  n)  you  will,  Q  Theages, 
make  great  and  rapid  improvement, 
otherwife  not."  The  following  is  the 
pafTage  in  that  dialogue  on  which  the 
principal  flrefs  is  laid ;  sgi  yap  TI  <3hcc 

y.Otpai  'UrO-pSTTQ^zVOV    1^.01    bK   ZVaiOtig  dp^X^ZVQV 

AAIMONION-  E2TI AE  TOTTO  <f>flU 

NH,  v\>   oTixv  yiVYjj&it  da  jjloi  oiJiMzivfi,   0  as 

JXiAAw  T&pQi'fjzlV)  TXTX  (X>7Tojp07T7l'A  TZp^clTH  8c 
m7T0J£.    X)  ZOiV    Tig  JJiOi    T00V  (plhOOV  CtVCL'MlV'jQTCCl 

Ti,  %  ysvyfjai  jj  (poovrj,  tolvtqv  tSto  cctzq\£tzU) 
x,  %k  la.  zvpccTjuv.  Had  he  thought  any 
thing  of  a  genius,  would  he  not  rather 
have  faid,  "  this  advifes  me  by  a  voice" 
than  <c  this  is  a  voice?"  The  whole  evi- 
dently points  to  ibme  naturally  infjgni- 
5  ficant 


t  51  ] 

ficant  found.    The  following  expreffions, 
Which  all  occur  in  Plato's  apology,  feem 
to  point  almoft  exelufively  to  the  prefent 
hypothefis.     n   ««#}«    F*  MANTIKH* 
i  T8  fcpW- to  TOT  ©EOT  en^ey.— 
tom9os  tnqne&r* ©EION  T|,  $   Icupivw 
It  is  true  that  in  the  fame  piece  he  fpeaks 
of  it  as  fomething  wonderful  and  pecu- 
liar to  himfelf ;  but  an  uncommon  warn- 
ing, lingular  from  the  regularity  or  fre- 
quency of  its  recurrence,  might  eafily  be 
fuppofed  to  have  been  conveyed  in  an 
ordinary  manner,  or  in  fome  way  at  leaft 
analogous  to  the  common  omens.     So  in 
the  Theages,  where  we  find  yj  IwotpU  ocvty) 
t5  loupovix  t£tx,  may  we    not  fairly  fub- 
ftitute  tS  0.5  tsts,  as  equivalent,  a  id  un- 
derftand  it  of  the  divine  power  in  general* 
inftead  of  tranQating  it  "  the  fozver^  of 
this  demon  ?"     I  would  afk  any  attentive 
reader  of  the  Phaedo,  what  conclufion  he 
can  draw  from  the  account  there  given  by 
Socrates  of  his  reafons  for  undertaking 
to  compofe  verfes,  and  of  the  choice  of 
his  fubjecfcs?  I  can  fee  nothing  in  it  buc 

E  2  a  moil 


C   5*   ] 

a  moft  fcrupulous  attention  to  the  fup- 
pofed  divine  admonition,  and  a  defiremoft 
itrongly  to  propitiate  Apollo.  More 
might  eafily  be  faid  upon  this  fubjedt, 
but  it  feems  unneceffary.  I  will  add 
only,  that  if  there  are  in  Plato's  writings 
any  paflages  which  will  admit  of  no  con- 
ftru&ien  but  fuch  as  favours  the  notion 
of  a  demon  in  this  matter,  either  I  have 
not  ever  met  with  them,  or  have  fuffered 
them  to  pafs  me  unnoticed.  I  confefs,  I 
have  not  very  accurately  fought  them, 
thinking  it  needlefs  to  fupport  fo  ftrong 
an  evidence  as  has  been  adduced,  by  the 
concurrence  of  a  weaker  teftimony. 

(W)  If  the  opinion  of  the  reality  of 
Socrates's  demon  were  ftill  prevalent,  it 
might  be  requifite  to  fay  fomething 
againft  the  argument  which  might  be 
deduced  for  its  fupport,  from  the  boafted 
veracity  of  his  predictions,  which  we 
find  afierted  even  by  Xenophon.  M<?- 
mcrab*  L  I.  c.  i.  The  infpiration  of  the 
DelpHic  oracle  might  be  defended  upon 
the  fame  ground.     Infallibility  is  eafily 

claimed, 


[    53    3 

claimed,  and  is  maintained  without  much 
difficulty,  fo  long  as  the  tafk  of  interpre- 
tation remains  in  the  hands  of  prejudice 
and  fuperftition.  Nor  is  it  by  any  means 
necefiary  that  impofture  fhould  bear  a 
part  in  fuch  preterifions,  the  firfl  deceit  of 
thele  pretenders  is  often  pra&ifed  upon 
themfelves.  Euthyphron  makes  a  limi- 
lar  claim  in  the  dialogue  which  bears  his 
name,  and  probably  from  a  fimilar 
caufe. 


FINIS. 


A    SHORT 

State  of  the  Controverfy 

About  the  Meaning  of  the 

DEMONIACKS 

IN     THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT: 

WITH 

A  Vindication  of  the  Reply 

to  the  Farther  Enquiry,    from  all  the 

Objections  of  a  late  Tract,  intitled, 

A  Review  of  the  Controverfy. 

By  the  same  Hand, 
— fi 

"  The  Ufe  of  Demon  in  the  worft  Senfe,  or  direclly 
"  for  a  Devil,  will  be  almoffc  confined  to  the 
"  Gofpels,  where  the  Subjecl  fpoken  of  being  Men 
"  vexed  with  evil  Spirits,  could  admit  no 
"  other  Sense  or  Use."  Mr.  Mede's Works, 
Edit.  1664.  p.  784. 


L  0  N  D  O  N: 

Printed  for  J.  Roberts  at  the  Oxford-Arms  ia 
Warwick- Lane,     1739. 

[  Price  6d.  ] 


[3] 


PREFACE. 


WHEN  a  Contr  overfly  has  been  length* 
ened  out,  and  federal  Books  or  Pam- 
phlets have  appear  d  on  each  fide  of  the 
Queftion,  it  mujl  be  owned  to  lye  under  many 
"Disadvantages.     The  Curiofity  of  the  Reader, 
which  perhaps  might  at  flrfl  be  awakened,  is 
too  apt  to  flag.     And  it  will  be  fcarcely  pofljible 
for  the  Writers  always  to  avoid  perfonal  De- 
bates, or  tedious  Repetitions.     Men  are  fome- 
times  liable  to  miftake  each  other  s  Meanings, 
fometimes,  it  is  to  be  feared,  glad  to  mifrepre- 
fent  them.     A  due  Regard  to  his  Character  will 
incline  an  honejl  Man  to  vindicate  it :  And  a 
Spirit  cf  Perverjenefs  will  influence   others  to 
defend  whatever  they  have  once  maintained,  tho' 
the  Defenfe  Jhould  even  make  them  inconfiflent 
with  themfelves.     Many,  who  Jet  out  with  Mo- 
defly    and  a  SubmiJJion  to   the  World,    in  the 
Courfe  of  a  Difpute  often  grow  angry  and  po- 
fitive, 

3  THESE 


[4] 

THESE  Reflections  difconraged  me  at flrfl 
from  troubling  the  World  any  more  on  the  Sub- 
ject of  Demoniacks.  And  even  after  its  Im- 
portance had  made  me  refolve  to  write  again,  I 
intended  no  more,  than  to  give  ajloort  View  of 
the  State  of  the  Debate ,  to  Jl^ew  how  far  the 
Review  had  miflaken,  or  left,  the  general  §}uef 
tion,  without  entering  into  any  particular  Vindi- 
cation of  the  Reply.  However ;  this  I  have  been 
by  degrees  drawn  into.  1  have  attempted  to 
anfwer  every  thing  which  has  been  objected  to 
me.  And  the  only  Difficulty  I  found  here  wasy 
that  as  the  Review  propofed  to  confider  the  Works 
oj fever al  other  Gentlemen ,  as  well  as  my  own,  he 
has  blended  us  together  in  fuch  an  artificial  Con- 
fujion,  that  it  was  not  always  eajjfor  me  to 
take  my  own  part,  without  feeming  to  encroach 
on  thofe  of  my  Fellow- Labourers. 

ONE  thing  more  I  beg  leave  to  prcmife* 
For  the  fake  of  Brevity,  I  have  frequently  re- 
ferred to  the  former  Tracts  which  have  paffed 
on  this  Subject,  and  which  1  could  wijl:  that  the 
Reader  would,  as  he  goes  along,  take  the  Trouble 
to  con/ult.  Thoy  without  doing  this  he  may  eaflfy 
enough  under/land  the  Reafoning. 


A  Short 


£*] 


A 

Short  State  of  the  Controverfy 
about  the  Meaning  of  the 
Demoniac ks  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, &c  • 


TH  E  Controverfy  about  the  Meaning  of  the 
Demoniacks  in  the  New  Tejlament  has  now 
fallen  into  many  hands.  Several  Gentle- 
men have  engaged  in  the  Vindication  of 
the  literal  Senfe.  And  a  Review  of  the  whole  has 
lately  been  publifhed  by  one,  who  ftyles  himfelf  a 
Lover  of  TR  UTH.  Such  Titles  are  become  fiale 
Artifices ;  and  the  World  have  thus  been  too  often 
impofed  upon,  any  longer  to  truft  them,  or  to  ex- 
pect the  more  from  them.  In  this  Review  I  can- 
not think  my  felf  greatly  concerned.  But,  fince 
fome  of  my  Friends,  to  whofe  Judgment  I  mail  al- 
ways fubmit  my  own,  think  it  neceffary  to  take  off 
fome  falfe  Colours  which  appear  in  it,  and  fince  this 
is  what  I  cannot  defire  any  of  the  other  Gentlemen 
engaged  to  do  for  me ;  I  hope  the  World  will  fa- 
vour me  with  their  Attention  to  the  following  Trad, 
which  I  promife  them  fhall  be  2&fhort  as  poflible. 

Th  e  Author  of  the  Review  always  fpeaks  of  the 
Enquirer  in  the  third  Perfon,  and  once  he  compli- 
ments him  with  the  Characters  of  \  learned  and  in- 

a  Pag.  63, 

B  genious  5 


[6] 

genious  ;  which,  however  due,  no  Man  of  Modefty 
can  be  thought  to  give  him  felf.  I  muft  therefore 
Jook  upon  him  as  a  different  Perfon,  who  was  wil- 
ling to  fhew  his  Regard  in  this  manner.  But,  if  I 
may  have  leave  to  fpeak  my  Sentiments,  the  En- 
quirer is  more  obliged  to  his  Intentions,  than  to  his 
Performance,  Non  tali  auxilio,  nee  defenforibus,  cVc. 
A  great  part  of  this  is  a  Repetition  of  what  is  much 
better  faid  in  the  Enquiry.  And  as  to  the  reft,  the 
Defenfe  is  carried  on,  not  only  on  new  Principles, 
but  fometimes  even  on  fuch  Suppositions  as  are 
contrary  to  thofe  made  in  the  former  Treatifes. 

Th  a  t  this  may  be  more  plain  to  the  Reader, 
it  may  not  be  improper  to  lay  before  him  a  fhort 
View  of  the  State  of  the  Controverfy,  fo  far  as  I  am 
concerned  in  it. 

Th  e  firft  Enquiry  fet  out  with  mewing  u  the 
"  general  Notion  of  Demons  among  the  ancient 
u  Greeks : "  He  afferted  this  to  be  the  Souls  of  de- 
farted  Men ;  and  this  he  thought  "  univerfally  al- 
"  lowed  by  Jews  and  Chrijlians,  as  well  as  Hea* 
"  thens  V  Here  the  Effay  firft  differed  from  him. 
I  had  obferved,  that  this  Senfe  could  never  be  ac- 
commodated to  the  Evangelical  Hiftory :  I  knew, 
that  the  Word  had  been  ufed  in  a  different  SzvAt 
by  Chnftian  Writers  ever  fince  that  Hiftory  was 
wrote  ;  I  therefore  could  "  not  think  the  general 
"  Notion  of  Demons  among  the  ancient  Greeks  to 
"  the  prefent  Purpofe  of  fettling  the  Meaning  of 
<c  the  Demoniac ks  in  the  New  Tefl  anient  V  The 
Effay  all  along  proceeded  on  the  Suppofition,  that, 
whatever  the  Heathen  Demons  were,  the  Scripture 
Demons  were  fallen  Angels.  And  the  Reafon,  why 
this  Suppofition  was  not  then  proved  at  large,  was, 
becaufe  it  was  the  general  Opinion  of  the  moft 
learned  Criticks,  ancient  and  modern,  whom  I  had 

b  Enquiry,  p.  2,  4,  &>V.  f  Efay,  p.  7. 

cited 


[7] 

cited  and  referred  tod.  Such  Confent  is  not  to  be 
oppofed  rafhly  and  without  Neceffity.  And  there- 
fore I  had  reafon  to  expect,  that  if  the  Enquirer 
continued  to  lay  any  Strefs  on  the  Notion  of  the 
Heathens,  he  would  have  quite  confuted  that  gene- 
ral Opinion,  and  fhewn,  that  the  Scripture  Meaning  of 
the  Word  must  have  been  the  fame  with  the  other. 

But  what  had  we  of  this  fort  in  the  Farther  En- 
quiry ?  Not  a  Syllable.  Nothing  but  peremptory 
Ailertions.  This  was  evidently  fetting  up  his  own 
Authority  in  Oppofition  to  that  of  all  other  Criticks* 
and  not  reafoningy  but  dictating  to  the  World.  This 
I  complained  of  in  my  Reply e.  I  endeavoured  to 
fhew  the  Unreafonablenefs  of  fetching  the  Senft  of 
the  Word  in  Scripture  from  Heathen  Authors  ;  and 
fhewed,  that  even  Mr.  Mede  himfelf  agreed  with 
the  other  learned  Men  in  this  Point f . 

Now  how  does  the  Author  of  the  Review  act? 
Why,  he  very  fairly  deferts  the  Enquirer.  With 
regard  to  the  great  Point,  which  fb  much  wanted 
Proof,  and  on  which  fo  much  depended,  he  is  ab- 
folutely  filent g.      Neither  Reafons  nor  Authorities 

have 

d  Effhy,  p.  8.  e  Reply,  p.  2,  3.  f  Ibid.  p.  4. 

s  In  the  20th  and  2ift  Pages  of  the  Review  we  have  indeed 
thefe  Words.  "  It  is  one  thing  to  punilh  Injuftice;  it  is  ano- 
"  ther  to  be  immoral,  and  promote  and  infpire  Fraud  and 
"  Wickednefs.  This  was  never  imputed  to  Demons  anciently ; 
"  the  other  was :  And  therefore  to  underfland  a  Greek  Book, 
"  where  the  Word  Demon  occurs  often  without  any  Definition 
"  of  it,  it  must  be  neceffary  to  know  what  was  the  Notion  of 
**  that  Word  in  Greek,  before  and  at  the  Time  when  fuch  Book 
"  was  wrote."  This  I  cite  as  the  only  Paffage  which  has  fo 
much  as  the  Air  of  Reafoning.  From  the  illative  Particle 
therefore,  one  would  think  it  a  Conclufion  from  what  went 
before.  But  it  is  a  Conclufion  without  any  Premi/fes  to  fupport  it. 
If  the  Heathens  underftood  Demon,  as  this  Gentleman  reprefents 
them,  this  can't  prove  it  to  be  necejfary  to  confult  them  in  order 
to  know  the  Senfe  of  Scripture.  And  tho'  the  facred  Writers  have 
no  where  given  a  formal  Definition  of  the  Word  Demon,  yet 
they  have  fufficiently  guarded  againft  Mifconftrudions,  by  af- 

B  2  figning 


[8] 

have  the  leafl  Weight.  He  goes  on  heaping  upon  us. 
frejh  Teftimonies  from  Heathen  Authors^  as  if  their 
Importance^  in  order  to  a  right  underftanding  of 
the  Scriptures^  were  undeniable.  Surely  this  Me- 
thod, to  give  it  the  fofteft  Name,  is  impertinent  \ 
nor  is  it  poflible  for  any  Controverfy  to  be  thus 
decided. 

Th  e  Reader  fees,  that  I  had  no  need  to  concern 

my  felf  about  the  Heathen  Authorities,  and  that 

the  Caufe  I  defended  was  fecure  enough,  without 

producing  any,  till  the  Principle  above-mentioned 

could  be  proved.     But  notwithstanding  this,  I  went 

farther,  and  in  order  to  manifeft  the  Falfehood  of  it, 

and  at  the  fame  time  to  throw  fome  Light  in  upon 

the  Subject,  I  endeavoured  to  mew  fome  different 

Senfes  in  which  the  Heathens  ufed  the  Word.  Demon , 

and  their  great  Perplexities  and  Inconfiftencies  on 

this  Subject  :    I  obferved,  that  the  Enquirer  had 

himfelf  departed  from  the  general  ArTertion  he  had 

before  made  g,  and  that  his  Account  of  the  Heathen 

Demonology  is  both  partial  and  unjuft  h  :  And  I  la- 

bour'd  to  confute  the  whole  Scheme  at  once,by  fhew- 

ing,  that  even  the  Heathens  ufed  the  Word  Demons 

in  an  UlSenfe,  and  that  very  probably  they  fometimes, 

underftood  by  them  wicked  and  noxious  Beings,  fu- 

perior  to  Men '.     This  laft  is  the  main  Particular 

which  the  Review  concerns  itfelf  about :  And  his 

Replies  to  my  Reafoning  on  it,  tho',  were  they  all 

allowed,  the  general  Caufe  would  not  be  affected, 

iigning  to  thefe  fuch  A&ions  as  could  never  be  applied  to  de- 
parted Souls,  or  Men  naturally  di  leafed.  I  mutt  have  leave  to 
fay,  that  the  Parts  of  the  Goipels  which  gave  Rife  to  this  Dif- 
pute,  till  a  much  clearer  and  better  Account  be  given  of  them, 
are  fufficient  Inftances  of  this.  And  as  to  the  "  Notion  of  the 
*  Word"  among  the  Jews  "  at  the  Time  when"  thefe  "  Books 
"  were  wrote,"  it  will  fcarce  be  denied  to  be  on  the  fide  of 
the  Letter. 

8  Rtpfy*  P-  5-    £  #"/.  p.  6— —17.    J  JW-  p.  17— —28. 

{hall 


[9] 

(hall  be  diftine*tly  confider'd,  and,  I  hope,  clearly 
refuted. 

In  the  Farther  Enquiry  k  it  is  propofed  "  to  exa- 
c<  mine  both  the  Old  and  New  Teftament,  to  fee 
"  the  Notion  of  Aotipdvuv  in  them,  and  whether 
"  they  are  not  to  be  interpreted  confident  with  the 
"  Notion  [of  the  Heathens,  before]  at  large  ex- 
"  plained."  Here  alfo  I  followed  him,  and  by  a 
diftincl:  View  of  moft  of  the  Texts  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment, and  of  all  from  the  New,  I  endeavoured  to 
expofe  the  Idlenefs  of  the  Attempt,  and  to  vindi- 
cate the  common  Interpretation  of  the  Word1. 
Here  then  I  might,  if  ever,  have  expected  fome 
Anfwer.  And  yet,  I  know  not  how  it  has  hap- 
pened, even  in  this  Cafe  the  Review  in  a  manner 
leaves  his  Friend  the  Enquirer.  We  are  indeed  told, 
*c  that  powerful  and  mifchievous  Devils  m  are  no 
u  where  to  be  met  with  in  the  Old  Teftament."  But 
not  an  Anfwer  is  vouchfafed  to  any  one  thing  which 
I  offer'd  in  considering  the  feveral  Texts  therein  ; 
and  thefe  Confiderations,  if  they  ftand  good,  evi-* 
dently  prove  that  Point.  And  as  to  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, there  are,  I  think,  only  four  Texts,  my  De- 
fenfe  of  which  is  taken  any  Notice  of.  And,  tho* 
there  are  in  the  Review  fome  other  Objections, 
which  I  had  either  anfwered  or  obviated  before  *  ; 
yet,  as  thefe  are  urged  inOppofition  to  fome  of  the 
other  Gentlemen  engaged  with  me,  I  mall  leave  it 
to  them  to  confider  them,  if  they  think  proper, 

*  Farther  Enquiry,  p.  25.     1  Reply,  p.  29,  &c.     m  Rev.  p.  S. 

n  An  Inftance  of  this  we  have,  Rev.  p.  44,  45.  where  the 
Obje&ions  about,  This  kind  can  come  forth  by  nothing  but  by  Prayer 
andFafting,  are  again  ferved  up  to  us  in  a  more  confufed  man- 
ner: and  no  notice  taken  of  the  Anfwers  which  were  given  in 

the  Effay,  p.  51 ■ 57.    Thus  again,  what  we  havcRw. 

p.  41,  42.  was  obviated  in  the  Reply,  91,  92,  93.  the  particular 
Reafoning  of  which  remains  unajifwered.  And  fo  in  many 
©ther  Places. 

and 


[    IO] 

and  confine  my  felf  to  fpeak  to  thofe  Points,  on 
which  I  am  exprefsly  refer'd  to. 

From  this  fhort  and  general  View  of  the  State 
of  our  Debate,  it  is  eafy  to  fee  how  far  the  Review 
is  from  being  a  full  Defenfe  of  the  Enquiries ,.  or  a 
fufficient  Anfwer  to  the  Effay  and  Reply.  Let  us 
however  confider  what  he  has  faid,  and  this  firft 
with  regard  to  the  Heathen  Writers,  and  fecondly 
with  regard  to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

It  is,  it  feems,  a  certain  Principle ',  an  Axiom  or 
Poflulatum  to  be  admitted  without  any  Proofs  that 
the  Scripture  Demons  are  the  fame  with  thofe  acknow- 
ledged by  the  Heathens.  Unreafonable  as  this  may 
appear,  let  us  oblige  the  Author,  and  for  once  al- 
low it.  But  then,  if  the  Heathens  ever  ufed  the 
Word  in  a  very  ill  Senfe,  for  wicked  and  noxious  Be- 
ings of  a  fuperior  Order  to  Men,  then  the  Scripture- 
Demons  may  (till  be  fetch  Beings.  For  fuppofing, 
that  facred  Writers  are  to  be  interpreted  according 
to  the  profane  Writers,  yet  certainly  they  might  ufe 
this  Word  in  any  Senfe,  in  which  thefe  ufed  it.  One^ 
Point  then  which  the  Reply  °  undertook  to  prove* 
and  which  was  intended  as  no  other  than  an  Argu- 
ment ad  Hominem,  was,  that  among  other  Senfes  of 
the  Word,  that  above-mentioned  was  one.  In  order 
to  this  I  obferved,  that  the  Author  of  the  Farther 
Enquiry  had  himfelf  owned,  that  cc  the  Chaldeans- 
iC  fuppofed  two  Principles,  a  good  Demon  and  an 
"  evil  Demon.  The  former's  Name  was  Zeus  and, 
"  Oromafdes  ;  the  latter  was  called  Ades  and  Ari- 
H  manius p."  And  from  hence  I  thought  it  clear, 
that  the  Gentleman  allow 'd  "  an  evil  Demon,  which 
u  can't  be  pretended  to  have  been  the  Soul  of  a, 
<c  departed  Man."  And  this  I  confirmed  by  ano- 
ther Paflage  in  Plutarch  of  the  fame  Import. Let 

us  now  attend  the  Review.  "  As  if  {fays  he)  a  firfb 

•  Pag.  17,  &V.  p  Pag.  21. 

«  Principle* 


[»] 

*•  Principle,  One,  the  Caufe  of  Evil,  had  any  thing 
*'  to  do  with  evil  Demons,  malignant  Beings,  that 
**  are  the  Subjects  of  the  prefent  Debate  V  And 
can  this  Gentleman  then  think,  that  the  Caufe  of 
Evil  was  fuppofed  to  be  any  other  than  a  malignant 
Being  ?  Was  he  not  the  mojl  malignant ,  mifchievous9 
malevolent  Being  ?  And  was  he  not  exprefsly  called 
Demon  ? 

But  I  imagine  that  this  Writer  expected,  that 
Inftances  mould  be  produced  where  the  Word  is 
ufed  in  the  Plural  Number  of  fuch  Beings r.— -  Now 
firft,  this  is  a  Subtlety  unknown  to  both  the  Enqui- 
ries. The  Farther  Enquiry  is  fo  far  from  laying  any 
Strefs  on  the  Difference  of  Number,  that  the  Re- 
viewer himfelf  blames  it  for  fuppofing  "  Ocellus  Lu- 
*c  canus  to  fpeak  of  evil  Demons,  fuch  as  were  de- 
"  tefted  by  the  Gods,  and  Demons,  and  Men,  and 
**  Families,  and  States  \"  Here  then  the  Reviewer 
plainly  deferts  the  Principles  of  his  Friend —  And  I 
will  add,  2.  very  abfurdly.  For  if  the  Word  De- 
won  was  ufed  by  the  ancient  Heathens  for  an  evil 
Being,  no  Reafon  can  poffibly  be  afligned  why  De- 
mons may  not  fignify  evil,  malignant  Beings.  The 
Gofpels,  even  when  they  fpeak  of  Pojfeffions,  very 
frequently  fpeak  of  a  Demon  \  According  then  to 
the  Principles  of  the  Review,  m  all  fuch  at  leaft^ 
the  Word  being  ufed  in  the  Singular  Number 
may  have  no  relation  to  a  departed  Soul,  but  to 
a  Caufe  of  Evil. But  did  the  Heathens  acknow- 
ledge any  evil  Demons,  in  the  S&n{Q  of  Devils  ?  I 
anfwer,  That  fuppofing  they  did  not,  can  we  con- 

*  Review,  p.  10.  *  See  Review,  p.  8. 

f  See  Reply,  p.  19,  20.  Rmienv  p.  21.  And  it  may  be  added, 
that  all  the  Farther  Enquiry  infilled  upon  was,  that  "  the  Sacred 
"  Scriptures  are  to  be  conftantly  interpreted  agreeable  to  the 
"  Heathen  Notion  of  the  Word  Demon"  p.  25,  not  Demons  in 
the  Plural. 

6  Luk.  iv.  33.  Mark  vii.  26.  Mattb,  xvii.  18.  and  fo  fre- 
quently in  other  Places. 

elude 


[    12    ] 

elude  that  the  Scriptures  know  no  fuch  ?  It  is  ri- 
diculous enough  to  fetch  the  Senfe  of  all  Scripture 
Words  from  Heathen  Writers  :  But  it  would  be 
much  more  fo,  to  imagine  that  Revelation  contains 
no  clearer  Notices  of  the  Spiritual  World,  than  the 
Heathens  were  acquainted  with. — Might  not  then 
the  Cafe  be  as  follows  ?  The  ancient  Heathens  are 
owned  to  have  ufed  the  Word  Demon  for  the  Author 
or  Caufe  of  Evil :  The  infpired  Writers,  knowing 
the  fallen  Angels  to  be  very  evil  Beings,  and  Authors 
and  Caufes  of  Evil,  thought  proper  to  apply  to  thefe 
the  fame  Word,  only  changing,  as  it  was  neceffary 
to  change,  the  Number. 3.  But  the  chief  Diffi- 
culty with  the  Author  of  the  Review  feems  to  be, 
that  "  Arimayiius,  one  of  the  Chaldean  firffc  Princi- 
"  pies"  was  ct  efteemed  by  them  an  original  and 
"  independent  Caufe,"  and  therefore  "  is  a  Cafe  quite 
cc  foreign  to  the  Purpofe  :  For  the  Difpute  is  not 
"  concerning  original  or  firfi  Caufes,  but  inferior  ^ 
"  dependent  Beings,  or  Demons  V  I  fear  this  will 
only  make  the  matter  worfe.  For  whatever  Ari- 
manius  was,  he  is  called  a  Demon.  If  therefore 
Scripture  muft  be  interpreted  according  to  the  Hea- 
then Notions,  why  may  not  a  Demon  in  the  Gofpel 
fignify  an  original  and  independent  Caufe  ?  —  Which 

will  fcarce  be  afTerted. But  to  give  a  more 

direct  Solution  of  the  Difficulty That  Demon  is 

here  ufed  for  a  very  evil  Being,  is  certain — That  it 
was  put  for  the  Devil,  as  Arimanius  was  believed  to 
be  w,  I  think  extremely  probable.     Nor  is  it    any 

Objection* 

u  Pag.  8. 

w  Tho'  the  Gentleman,  I  have  to  deal  with,  fo  exceedingly 
defpifes  Authorities,  yet  for  the  fake  of  others,  with  whom 
that  of  the  learned  Dr.  Prideaux  may  have  fome  Weight,  I 
Can't  forbear  adding,  that  he  ityled  the  Caufe  of  all  Evil,  Ari- 
manitSy  the  Devil.  And  he  goes  on,  "  Concerning  thefe  two 
"  Gods "  [the  good  and  the  evil  one]  "  there  was  this  Diffe- 
**  rence  of  Opinion  among"  the  Magians,  "  that  whereas  fome 
•'  held  both  of  them  to  have  been  from  all  Eternity,  there 

were 


[  i3  ] 

Objection,  that  they  thought  him  an  original  and 
independent  Caufe.  Tradition  might  convey  down 
the  general  Exiftence  of  this  curfed  Spirit  ;  and  yet 
might  become  very  obfcure,  perplexed,  and  mis- 
taken with  regard  to  his  particular  Nature  or  to  his 

Creation. 4.  With  refpecl  to  the  PafTage  in  Za* 

leucus,  which  the  Review  fays  "  may  feem  to  be 
"  mofl  to"  my  "  Point,"  I  am  much  miftaken,  if 
it  does  not  fully  come  up  to  it.  I  had  tranflated  it, 
Should  any  one  be  tempted  to  Injufiice  by  a  wicked 

Demon he  ought  to  beg  the  Gods  to  ojfift  him  in 

driving  him  away.     The  firft  Exception  to  this,   is, 

x  that  "  Zaleucus  was  a  Pythagorean and  is  not 

"  therefore  fpeaking  concerning  a  wicked  Demon, 
"  but  the  wicked  Demon,  the  Origin  and  Caufe  of 
"  all  Evil."  But  there  is  no  Pretence  for  this. 
The  Words  are  A#(u*»v  xaxoV,  without  any  Article, 
which  furely  will  admit  of  either  rendering.  And 
however  they  are  rendered,  we  have  here  a  "  ma- 
"  levolent  Being  promoting  Wickednefs  or  Mifery 
"  amongftMen7."  In  the  next  place,  I  am  charged 
with  mifreprefenting  the  Paffage.  It  feems,  I  read 
avTov  for  uvtIu),  and  accordingly  tranflated  it  him, 
inftead  of  it.  And  I  mould  be  glad  to  know, 
what  Advantage  I  could  poflibly  reap  from  this 
Mifreprefentation.  Let  the  PafTage  ftand  as  in 
the  Review,  it  is  exactly  the  fame  to  my  Argu- 
ment. But  the  Reader  I  fear  will  want  an  Apo- 
logy, not  for  my  being  guilty  of  fuch  an  Error, 
but  for  my  troubling  him  with  Anfwers  to  fuch 
trifles Laftly,  tho'  I  own,  when  I  wrote  the 

"  were  others  that  contended,  that  the  good  God  only  was 
"  eternal,  and  that  the  other  was  created."  Conneft.  Part  I. 
Book  III.  Vol.I.  pag.  252,  253.  Edit.  10th.  And  why  the 
Scriptures  may  not  be  underftood  according  to  the  Sentiments  of 
tkcfcy  as  well  as  any  other  Heathens,  I  know  not.  I  wifh  the 
Reader  would  confult  p.  305. 

*  Review,  p.  11.  7  Ibid.  p.  10. 

C  Reply, 


[  14  ] 

Reply,  I  did  not  dream  of  that  Diftinction  between 
the  Demon  and  Demons,  which  this  Gentleman  builds 
fo  much  upon  ;  and  tho'  I  thought  it  fufficient  to 
produce  Inftances,  where  the  Word  is  ufed  in  an 
///  Senfe  in  either  Number  ;  yet  it  happened  luckily, 
that  without  designing  it,  I  have  fufficiently  obvi- 
ated this  Pretence,  and  fhewed,  that  the  Heathens 
did  understand  Aa/juo^  and  Aoupovix  of  evil  Beings. 
The  Reader  may  fee  a  Paflage  from  Plutarch  plain 
and  full  beyond  all  Exception  z.  But  no  Notice  is 
taken  of  this,  I  fuppofe,  becaufe  Plutarch  lived  after 
Christ.  This  is  another  Art  of  the  Review, 
which  frequently  helps  him  out  of  Diftrefles.  And 
it  may  feem  inhuman  to  deprive  him  of  it.  But 
the  Truth,  of  which  he  is  a  profefTed  Lover,  re- 
quires me  to  do  this,  and  will  therefore,  I  hope, 
procure  me  his  Pardon. 

Now,  hrft,  this  is  not  vindicating  the  Enquiry, 
but  profecuting  a  quite  different  Scheme.  In  this 
we  find  all  Authors  quoted  promifcuoufly a  \  the 
Senfe  of  Chriftians  and  Jews,  as  well  as  Heathens, 
was  attempted  to  be  fhewn :  And  in  his  Preface  the 
Author  intimated  his  Hopes  of  being  able  to  ex- 
plain even  the  Apologifts  fo,  as  to  reconcile  them  to 

his  Notion. Indeed  he  afterwards  feemed  to  be 

fenfible,  that  this  Deflgn  was  impracticable,  and 
that  the  Ground  he  flood  upon  could  not  be  de- 
fended. Accordingly,  the  Farther  Enquiry,  inftead 
of  explaining  the  Fathers,  abufes  them.  "  The  Fa- 
"  thers  invented  a  new  Scheme  of  Demono- 
"  l°gy  V  tho'  when,  or  where,  or  by  which  of  them 
it  was  invented,  we  are  not  told.  And  inftead  of 
vindicating  his  general  AfTertion,  he  denies  it  to 
have  been  in  his  Intention  to  fay,  what  he  had  aftu- 

2  Reply,  p.  23.  *  Ocellus  "  who  was  three  Generations  older 
"  than  Plato"  was  owned  to  "  fpeak  of  evil  Demons"  Far- 
ther Enquiry,  p.  1 9.  J  Ibid.  p.  72. 

ally 


[i5] 

ally  faid.  This  however  mull  be  imputed  to  mere 
Diftrefs.  And  tho9  Chriftian  Writers  were  all  fufpect- 
ed,  yet  ftill  we  had  no  Reafon  to  think,  that  the 
Heathens  might  not  be  called  in  as  good  Witnejfes, 
Hierocles,  tho'  excepted  againft  in  the  Review,  as 
not  early  enough  %  was  admitted  as  a  Voucher  in  the 
Farther  Enquiry d.     So  was  Plutarch e. 

But  the  Author  of  the  Review  is  more  nice. 
No  Testimony  will  be  allowed  by  him,  but  what 
is  truly  Heathen  and  truly  Ancient.  He  confines 
us  to  the  Times  before  the  Coining  of  Chrift,  and 
will  not  accept  of  even  an  Heathen  Authority  a£ 
ter wards  •,  for  fear,  I  fuppofe,  that  Plutarch,  &c, 
mould  have  been  concerned  with  the  Primitive 
Chriftians,  and  had  fome  hand  in  inventing  the 
new  Scheme  of  Demonology.  Or,  if  they  were  too 
honeft  to  do  this,  left  they  mould  have  receiv'd 
fome  Tincture  from  this  new  Scheme,  been  in  a 
manner  infected  with  the  Notions  of  Chriftians,  and, 
in  Compliance  to  thefe,  believed  the  Beings,  which 
they  pill  continued  to  worfhip,  to  be  Devils. 

Another  Author  which  I  cited  is  Julius  Pollux, 
againft  whom  there  lyes  the  fame  Exception;  for  he 
" f  lived  one  hundred  Years  after  Chrift  ; "  but,  I 

will  add,  was  never  fufpected  to  be  a  Chriftian. 

However,  the  Review  has  more  to  fay  to  this  Cita- 
tion, and  interprets  it  in  a  different  manner.  I  had 
render'd  Uhiiyj^oi  wicked  or  pernicious,  knowing  that 
the  Word  is  capable  of  both  Senfes,  and  feeing  no- 
thing in  the  place  to  exclude  either.  This  Gentle- 
man, without  any  Reafon  that  I  can  guefs,  but  be- 
caufe  it  makes  againft  his  Hypothec's,  will  not  have 
it  to  mean  wicked.  The  next  Word  is  dhUvie/^^ * 
which  he  tranflates  dejlruclive,  and  which  may  alfo 
fignify,  as  almoft  any  Lexicon  will  inform  us,  cur  fed, 
execrable.     The   other  two  Appellations   of  thefe 

*  Rev.  p.  71 .    *  Fartb,  Enq.  p.  7, 8.   e  Ibid.  p.  5.   f  Rev.  p.  10. 

C  2  Demons 


[  r6  ] 

Demons  are  «3rgoypoV**oi,  tsolxa^ouoi,  which  in  the 
Review  are  thus  paraphrafed,  "  To  whom  we 
*'  ought  to  apply  our  felves,  in  order  to  get  them 
"  to  avert  Mifchief,  the  Punifhers  of  thofe  who 
cc  are  guilty  of  Blood."  My  Objection  to  the  for- 
mer part  of  this  Interpretation  is,  that  it  makes 
thefe  Demons  much  the  fame  as  thofe  which  Pollux 
had  before  diftinguifhed  from  them,  by  the  Epi- 
thets   &Tt>7T0(lA7ra<0<,    &T3T£0 7TCU01,     KvtflOI.       And    aS   tO 

the  latter  part,  though  zsahafjuiou®-  may  have  the 
Meaning  which  the  Gentleman  afligns  it,  yet  he 
cannot  be  ignorant,  that  its  original  Senfe  rather  re- 
lates to  Guilt,  than  to  Punifhment,  and  that  it  de- 
notes any  wicked,  pernicious,  murdering  Being.  I 
mall  therefore  take  leave  to  give  another  Translation 
of  this  difficult  Paflage,  by  which  it  will  appear, 
that  every  Word  in  it  is  applicable  to  what  the 
Review  thinks  the  Heathens  had  no  Notion  of, 
f*  Devils,  immoral,  malignant  Beings.3'  Of  De- 
mons  others,   which   confirm  Curfes,  are  called 

wicked*  deftruclive,  execrable,  who  are  inftrumental 
in  bringing  Evils  on  Men,  and  plaguing,  punilhing, 
or  murdering  them z. 

As  to  what  is  faid  in  p.  12,  13,  of  the  Review, 
tho'  it  is  in  that  Part  which  relates  to  me,  I  do  not 
think  my  felf  concerned,  having  not  made  ufe  of 
the  Citations  there  pretended  to  be  explain'd h.  But 
p.  14.  we  meet  with  a  Sentence  or  two,  which  I 
can't  forbear  animadverting  upon.  <c  The  Rule 
"  among  the  Ancients  was  not  to  impute  Evil  to 
*c  evil  Demons  or  Devils,  of  which  they  knew  no- 

vctToi.  The  Latin  Tranflation  is,  Qui  autem  inferunt>  exitiales, 
pejliLntes,  malitioji,  &  homicide.  For  the  fake  of  Shortnefs,  I 
muft  refer  the  Reader  to  any  large  Lexicon  for  Inftances  of  thefe 
Words  being  ufed  in  the  Senfe  in  which  I  haye  underftood  them. 
h  I  would  not  be  underftood,  as  if  I  thought  the  Citations  not 
to  the  Purpofe.  That  from  Pindar  is  certainly  fo.  But  the 
Defenfe  of  it  belongs  properly  to  another  hand. 

3  "  thing* 


[  i7l 

Xi  thing,but  to  thejufticeof  theGods;  and  they  made 
*c  no  fcruple  to  fay,  as  Euripides  makes  Iphigenia^ 

<"  I  can9 1  think  any  of  the  Demons  to  be  evil They 

<c  did  not  fuppofe  malicious,  malevolent,  immoral 
"  Beings,  to  be  the  Authors  of  Evil  or  Wicked- 
"  nefs  in  Man  :  Nor  were  the  Executors  of  juft 
"  Punifhment  upon  Sinners,  fuch  as  Tifiphone,  or 
"  the  Furies,    deemed  Devils  or  malevolent  Be- 

"  ings." The  Reader  will,  I  hope,  pardon  the 

Length  of  this  Extract,  on  account  of  the  great  Cu- 

rioufnefs  of  it Which  certainly  deferves  fome 

particular  Remarks.  And,  firft,  we  fee  here  ano- 
ther Inftance  of  the  Review's  varying  from  the  En- 
quiries.  The  Author  of  this  laft  Piece  is  fo  far  from 
being  attached  to  Syftems,  that  he  makes  no  Scru- 
ple frequently  to  leave  even  that  Scheme,  which  he 
undertook  to  defend.  For,  at  the  very  Entrance  of 
the  firft  Enquiry,  we  are  told,  that  "  other  Writers,'* 
and  Proclus  and  Eufebius  are  quoted  without  the 
leaft  Cenfure  or  Diflike,  "  have  made  Demons  the 
"  Difpenfers  of  evil  Things,  as  well  as  good  ;  the 
"  Plagues  and  'Terrors  of  Mankind,  and  the  Au- 
"  thors  of  much  Evil  to  them \"  Again,  it  is 
there  confefTed,  that  the  old  Latins  "  imagined 
"  the  Larva  to  be  mifchievous  and  wicked  Spi- 
"  ritsk."  And  the  ordinary  Notion  concerning 
thefe  is  given  us  from  Apuleius,  which,  I  obferv'd 
in  the  Effay,  correfponds  much  with  the  Scripture 
Account  of  fallen  Angels  \  That  "  on  account  of 
"  their  ill  Deferts  in  Life,  they  were  punifhed  as  it 
"  were  by  a  fort  of  Banifhment,  by  their  having 
"  no  good  Place  of  Abode,  but  always  rambling 
*•'  about,  vain  Terrors  to  good  Men,  but  to  evil 
*■«  Men  noxious  m."  The  Truth  of  this  Opinion  I 
am  not  now  concerned  to  prove.     It  is  fufficient  to 

1  Enquiry,  p.  3.         k  Ibid.  p.  16.  l  EJay,  p.  1 8.  m  En- 

quiry, p.  18. 

my 


[  i8] 

my  prefent  Argument,  that  the  Author  of  the  En- 
quiry owns  it  to  have  been  the  ordinary  Notion. 
And  yet  the  Author  of  the  Review  afTerts,  that  the 
Ancients  "  did  not  fuppofe  malicious,  malevolent, 
"  immoral  Beings  to  be  the  Authors  of  Evil  and 
"  Wickednefs  in  Man"."  I  muft  leave  it  to  thefe 
two  great  Men  to  fettle  the  Point  between  them, 
it  being  a  Tafk  far  above  my  Capacity  to  reconcile 
them  together. 

2.  But  can  any  thing  be  ftronger  than  the  Tef- 
timony  of  Euripides  ?  And  mail  we  imagine  wicked 
Demons,  when  he  fb  exprefsly  makes  Iphigenia  de- 
clare, that  fhe  could  not  think  any  of  them  to  be 
fuch  ? Now  it  happens  unluckily,  that  the  Far- 
ther Enquiry,  in  order  to  account  for  thofe  Words 
of  St.  James,  the  Demons  believe  and  tremble,  and 
not  dreaming  of  that  pretty  Expofition  which  the 
Review  has  produced  from  a  Line  of  Orpheus  °, 
owns,  that  Demons  "  fignifies  like  wife  in  Heathen 
"  Writers  the  evil  Souls  of  departed  Men?"  It  is 
plain  then,  that  Iphigenia,  if  ihe  actually  faid  fo, 
was,  according  to  the  Enquirer,  miftaken.  And 
that  fhe  was  fo,  will  farther  appear  from  a  Paflage 
in  Plutarch,  which  I  beg  leave  to  fet  down  at  large. 
It  is  taken  from  his  Life  of  Dion,  near  the  Begin- 
ning of  it,  where  he  had  been  comparing  Dion  and 
Brutus,  and  had  particularly  taken  Notice,  that  both 
of  them  had  had  fome  Warnings  of  their  End. 
Tho'  cur  Gentleman  q  feems  to  doubt,  "  if  there 
6  c  be  fufficient  Evidence  for  the  Truth  of  "  one  of 
thefe  "  Stories,"  yet  Plutarch  relates  them  without 
the  leaft  Diffidence.  Afterwards  he  indeed  owns, 
that  in  his  Time  there  were  fome  who  laughed  at 
all  fuch  Accounts,  and  rejected  them  in  general. 
But  he  adds,  that  "  if  Dicn  and  Brutus,  who  were 

^XevwiJOj  p.  14.     °  few,  p.  26.     p  Forth.  Enquiry,  p.  58. 
**  Rei'ie-zv,  p.  15. 

"  fuch 


[  19  1 

<c  fuch  grave  Philofophers,  and  fo  little  liable  to 
"  be  conquered  by  any  Paflion,  were  fo  affecled  by 
Ci  this  Appearance,  that  they  told  it  to  others  ;  I 
"  know  not,  but  we  may  be  compelled  to  receive 
"  that  very  ancient  Opinion,  abfurd  as  it 
may  feem,  that  there  are  wicked  and  malevolent 
Demons,  who  envy  good  Men,  and  by,  their  Prac- 
tices raife  Difturbances  and  Fears,  weakening  and 
undermining  their  Virtue.  And  this,  left  by  conti- 
nuing ftedfaft  and  harmlefs  in  what  is  good,  thefe 
Jhould  after  Death  obtain  a  better  State  than  them- 
<c  /elves  V  We  fee,  that  this  is  fet  down  as  a 
very  ancient  Opinion.  I  need  not  add  a 
Word  to  (hew,  how  contrary  it  is  to  the  AfTertion 
of  our  Author.  And  the  only  Queftion  is,  which 
of  the  two  deferves  moft  Credit,  and  had  the  beft 
Opportunity  of  knowing  the  Sentiments  of  the  an- 
cient Heathens  ?  Plutarch,  we  fee  in  this  very  Paf- 
fage,  was  far  from  being  any  Bigot.  And,'  as  he 
lived  early  in  the  fecond  Century,  the  Words  tm 
TxravM  wctXoum  will  carry  us  up  much  higher  than  the 
Beginning  of  Chriftianity. 

r  'Ei  m  Aiav  xj  B/)sV<^«,  av^isj  IpGpidiii;  xj  tyiXorcipoi,  x}  <m^oq 
&($[v  cLnfoa-Qxtett;  y<^'  lvu\u\<H  <S7#0<§>',  87»s  v7ro  (px<r(Acc]<&>  JttWn- 
cr«f,  a>f«  xj  <Pfac<rcci  -arpos  &Tegx<;,  kv.  eftSx  pv)  rav  IIANY  IIAAAII2N 
7ov  oiT07r e/loi\ov  uvxyKK&apiv  tcrfotr^pc1^  T^oyov,  a>s  tu,  (pccvhx  Ji»- 
(jlovkc  X;  ficcrxxvx,  zvootrCpQovxvIx  toT<;  etyxdeTq  xvfycc<riv,  «£  rxTq 
'nrpafjanv  ocvisxpivx,  Txpx%,ot(;  xj  <poGs<;   inuyti,   oswlx  xj  (r^aXKmltn 

itlA    UQ6TW.         il5   [Hfi    OiUfAii'iVxAm   tCKTUTlS     h     7U    KXXu     xj   UXSQXiOt, 

fisX?Uv<&>  ixiiwo  |xoip«s  utira,  vita  rihdjTM  ToyfiHriv.     Plutarch. 
in  Dion. 

N.  B.  I  have  tranflated  rov  uroirulotlw,  abfurd  as  it  may  feem, 
and  believe  that  Plutarch  called  it  fo  in  relation  to  their  Senti- 
ments, whom  he  had  juft  before  mentioned.  For  if  he  had 
himfelf  thought  the  Opinion  moft  abfurd,  how  was  it  poflibie 
for  him  to  have  once  doubted,  whether  it  mould  be  received  or 
not  ?  Could  the  bare  Authority  of  Brutus  and  Dion  make  a  real 
Abfurdity  credible  ?  But  however  this  be,  abfurd  or  not,  it  is 
declared  to  be  a  'very  ancient  Opinion,  which  is  fufficient  to  the 
prefent  Purpofe  of  the  Quotation. 

3,  Still 


[30] 

3.  Still  the  Line  from  Euripides  flares  us  in  the 
Face.  And  I  muft  own,  that  I  could  hardly  think* 
that  fo  elegant  a  Writer  would  differ  in  this  refped 
from  fo  many  others,  as  have  mentioned  evil  De~ 
mons.  This  gave  me  a  Curiofity  to  confult  the  Paf- 
fage  itfelf.  And  the  Confequence  of  doing  fo  was 
only  an  Increafe  of  my  Surprize,  not  that  Euripides 
mould  fay  fo  ftrange  a  Thing,  but  that  any  Man  of 
Senfe  mould  produce  him  to  vouch  what  he  never 
intended  nor  thought  of.  The  Words  indeed,  as 
detached  from  what  went  before,  appear  ftrong  on 
the  Side  of  the  Reviezv.  But  let  us  but  take  in 
the  Occafion  on  which  they  were  fpoken,  and  the 
Manner  in  which  they  are  introduced,  and  nothing 
can  well  be  farther  from  his  Purpofe.  Jphigenia  is 
here  reprefented  as  complaining  of  Diana  on  ac- 
count of  the  human  Sacrifices  which  were  offered  to 
her.  The  Words,  which  the  Poet  puts  into  her 
Mouth  on  this  Occafion,  are  extremely  beautiful ; 
nor  mall  I  fear  the  Difpleafure  of  the  Reader,  for 
giving  them  at  large  even  in  a  Profe  Tranflation s. 
u  I  can't  but  condemn  the  Counfels  of  this  God- 
defs  -9  mould  any  Mortal  but  touch  a  dead  Body, 
or  a  Woman  in  her  Uncleannefs,  me  forbids 
him  to  come  to  her  Altars,  as  being  defiled. 
And  yet  fhe  herfelf  is  pleafed  with  human  Sacri- 

8  Tec   T>i5    0£»     3    /^'V^'/K'*'   (re^l(TfJuet]xt 

Bso/juuv   isnfpyi*,  [AVTctpo*  ax,  viya^ivri. 
Avrti  *f  $v<riect<;  tifolxt  GpoloKToms. 

QuK    sc&'  07TWC,  iTtKtV    UV  If   A»5$    0^/X«/> 
ArtTU    TCTKuTlW     CCflixSiuv.         lyoj     {liiV  uv 

T*  TctvluXe   Qeoicriv  ifiaLpuT* 

'  Anisct  x^iW,    zs-MiPoq   i)<r6wcii  /3epa. 
Tas   V«P  t^6ec  ^  it/]a$   hrxq  a,vfyw7roKTov8$ 
'En;  T  ©£01/   to  O&t/Aev  Uvatytpuv  &oxu. 
'OvffttX    y<xf>   upon  cctifjbovat  itixi   xxkoi. 

Eurip.  Iphig.  inTaur.  v.  380,  Sec. 

"  fices. 


[21   ] 

Ci  fices.  Surely  this  Ignofance,  or  Inconfiftency, 
•*  could  not  proceed  from  Latona  the  Wife  of 
"  Jupiter.  For  my  part,  I  look  upon  the  Story 
"  of  Tantalus's  feafting  the  Gods,  as  incredible,  or 
iC  that  there  could  be  any  Delight  in  eating  his  Son. 
"  And  I  imagine,  that  Men,  who  are  here  them- 
"  felves  guilty  of  Murder,  firft  charged  the  Divinity 
"  with  thisWickednefs.  For,  in  my  Opinion, -none  of 
"  the  Gods  are  ever  wicked"  i.  e.  cruel.  We  fee  now^ 
from  the  whole  Paflage,  that  by  Demons  Euripides 
could  mean  nothing  but  Gods  ;  and  that  the  Word 
can't  relate  to  Demons,  in  the  Senfe  of  the  Enquiries 
and  Review,  i.  e.  to  departed  Souls,  unlefs  it  be  af- 
ferted,  that  the  Heathens  knew  none  of  thefe  to  be 
wicked  ;  or  at  leaft,  that  they  knew  no  Gods  but 
departed  Souls,  which  is  equally  falfe  and  abfurd. 

4.  With  refpect  to  Tifiphone  and  the  Furies^ 
this  Gentleman  is,  I  believe,  as  much  miftaken. 
They  might  fometimes  minifter  to  the  Juftice  of 
the  Gods,  and  execute  juft  Punimment  on  Sinners. 
But  this  is  no  fort  of  Proof,  that  they  were  not 
malevolent  Beings.  Very  immoral  Perfons  may  be 
instrumental  in  bringing  about  very  wife  and  good 
Ends  of  Providence.  And  this  is  certain,  that 
thofe  Beings  are  by  Authors  reprefented  in  but  an 
unfavourable  Light.  Thus  Suidas  interprets 'E&mv?, 
K<Aluxfiovi&  ^oiifxcav  xxKQffoi&,  an  infernal,  maleficent 
Demon.  And,  to  mention  no  more,  what  does  the 
Author  of  the  Review  think  of  the  Character  of  A- 
letlo,  as  drawn  by  Virgil?  Was  me  barely  an  "  Exe- 
"  cutor  of  juft  Punifhment  on  Sinners  ?  "  Was  not 
fhe  a  malevolent  Being  ?  Hear  the  Poet's  own  Words, 

« cut  triftia  bella, 

lr<eque,  infidiaque,  £s?  crimina  noxia  cordis 

Odit  &  ipfe  pater  Pluton 

And  again,  thus  Juno  fpeaks  to  her : 

Tu  potes  unanimes  armare  in  pr alia  fratres^ 

Atque  odiis  verfare  domos . 

D  M 


Milk  nocendi  artes~ 


22    ] 

•libi  nomina  milk, 


And  again  it  is  faid  of  her, 

Vipeream  infpirans  animam  \ 

And  what  more  could  have  been  faid  of  the  Old 
Serpent  himfelf,  it  may  be  hard  to  imagine. 

I  have  but  one  Word  more  to  fay  with  regard 
to  the  ancient  Heathens.     I  had  taken  Notice  of  an 
unaccountable  Miftake  in  the  Farther  Enquiry,  in 
quoting  Ocellus  Lucanus.     The  Review   alfo  con- 
demns it,  and  then  adds,  p.  21.   "  Ocellus  had  no 
"  fuch  Notions    [as   evil  Demons;]    KXHoScupms 
"  therefore  fhould  have  been  tranflated  unhappy , 
"  and  the  Paragraph  be  changed,  fo  as  to  fhew 
"  Ocellus  to  be  with  the  Enquirer ;  and  not  an  an- 
"  cient  Teftimony  againft  him."     I  might  juftly 
return  the  Gentleman's  Sneer,  En  acumen  !   For  we 
have  here  one  of  the  moft  extraordinary  Pieces  of 
Reafoning  I  ever  faw.     Ocellus  is  fpeaking  of  quite 
a  different  Point,  and  is  not  again/l  the  Enquirer , 
Ergo,  he  is  with  him.     Becaufe  Horace  fays  not  a 
Syllable  of  evil  Demons  in  his  firft  Ode,  therefore 
he  believed  no  fuch.     This  is  a  Way  which  will 
foon  procure  the  Reviewer  Authorities  enough,  if 
the  abfolute  Silence  of  any  Author,  let  him  be  fpeak- 
ing on  what  Subject  he  will,  be  allowed  to  be  fuch. 
I  muft  own,  that  the  Gentleman  intimates,  that 
fome  Change  fhould  be  made  in  the  Paragraph. 
What  Change  he  means  indeed  I  can't  fay  :  But  I 
am  fure  it  muft  be  a  very  extraordinary  one,  which 
will  make  Ocellus  fpeak  his  Senfe.     For  he  muft 
excufe  me,  if  I  remind  him  of  what  I  mentioned  in 
the  Reply,  p.  19.  that  this  Author  is  fo  far  from 
thinking  Demons  to  be  departed  Souls,  that,  in  the 
fhort  Work  we  have  left  of  his,  he  more  than  once 
intimates  his  Notion  of  them  to  have  been  that  of 
Beings  of  a  middle  Nature,  between  Gods  and  Men. 
But  that  he  ever  diftinguifhes  thefe  into  good  and 
.yj  -.7.  327,  &v.  evil, 


[*3  J 

evil,  I  confefs  I  do  not  remember.  And  iuppofe 
he  does  not,  this  can  be  no  Proof  that  he  did  not 
believe  both  Kinds. 

I  really  imagined,  that  I  had  quite  done  with 
the  Objections  relating  to  Heathen  Authorities.    But 
in/>.  2  3, 1  find  the  Review  has  by  the  way  a  Reflection 
on  me,  and  endeavours  to  fet  a  Sentence  of  mine 
inOppofition  to  the  Chriftian  Apologias ,  whofe  Cre- 
dit I  had  before  vindicated,  and,  for  aught  appears 
yet,  unanfwerably.     This  Gentleman  fays,   "  the 
"  Author  of  the  Reply  feems  to  imagine,  that 
Jupiter,  Mercury,  &c.   had  not  been  Men  at  all, 
but  were  imaginary  Beings.     If  this  be  a  conteft- 
ed  Point  by  the  Author  of  the  Reply,  I  only 
defire  him  to  confute  the  Chriftian  Apologifts ; 
'  and  particularly  Tertullian's  Apology,  Ch.  10,  If, 
Arnobius,  &c.     Now  here  I  muft  firft  complain 
of  a  Mifreprefentation.     A  Sentiment  is  afcribed  to 
me,    which,  I  think,  cannot  be  drawn  from  my 
Words.     I  had  obferved  the  infamous  Characters 
of  many  of  the  Heathen  Deities,  and  then  added, 
This  is  the  general  Account  of  them  •,  and  if  we 
fet  it  afide,  it  will  not  be  eafy  to  evince,   that 
they  had  been  Men  at  all,  that  they  were  not  ima- 
ginary Beings  V     Now  is  this  feeming  to  imagine, 
that  Jupiter,  Mercury,  &c."  [under  which  &c.  all 
the  reft  of  the  Heathen  Gods  may  be  concluded] 
were  never  Men  ?    Or  wherein  do  I  contradict  the 
Apologifts  ?     Tertullian,  I  am  fure,  fays  much  the 
fame.     "  None  of  your  Gods  can  you  prove  free 
**  from  Crime  or  Vice,  unlefs  you  deny  them  to 
"  have  been  Men  V    So  far  then  I  am  clear.   But 

perhaps 
u  Reply y  p.  8.  r  The  whole  Sentence  being  curious,  I  lhall 
give  it  the  Reader.  "  Volo  igitur  merita  recenfere,  an  ejufmodi 
"  fint,  ut  illos  in  ccelum  extulerint,  &  non  potius  in  imum  tar- 
**  tarum  merferint,  quern  carcerem  pcenarum  infernarum,  cum 
"  vultis,  affirmatis.  Illuc  enim  abftrudi  folent  impii  quique  in 
"  parentes,  &  in  forores  incefti,  &  maritarum  adulteri,  &  virgi- 
**  num  raptores,  &  puerorum  contaminatores,  &  qui  fseviunt,  & 
*  qui  occidunt,  &  qui  furantur,  &  qui  decipiunt,  &  quicunque 

D  2  *  fimiles 


M 

a. 


[  *4  j 

perhaps  what  I  faid  in  the  7th  Page  might  give  this 
Gentleman  room  to  fufpect  thofe  above  to  have 
*■..  been  my  Sentiments.  It  was  there  obferved,  as 
*c  moft  probable,  that  the  Dii  major  urn  gentium  were 
"  originally  the  Sun,  Planets,  and  Elements,  &c. 
<«  and  that  Jupiter  might  fignify  the  Air  or 
*c  Heaven,  Apollo  the  Sun,  Vulcan  Fire,  &cc."  But 
neither  is  this  Account  abfolutely  inconfiftent  with 
the  Apologias,  who  can't  be  proved  in  this  matter 
to  have  declared  their  own  Sentiments.  There  is  no 
Occasion  to  fuppofe  they  did  fo.  It  was  fufficient 
for  their  Argument,  that  the  Opinion  that  Saturn 
and  Jupiter  had  been  Men,  was  allowed  by  the  Hea~ 
thens  them/elves.  And  accordingly  Tertullian  feems 
to  prefs  it  as  fuch  an  Argument :  Illos  homines  fuijfe 
non  pojfitis  negare,  are  his  Words  immediately  fol- 
lowing.— : But  I  need  not  have  recourfe  to  this 

Anfwer.  That  Varro  reckon'd  up  300  Jupiters 
every  School-boy  knows.  And  we  may  fafely  al- 
low him,  who  was  Son  of  Saturn,  to  have  been  a 
Man,  without  any  Prejudice  to  that  Account  above 

given  w. -Befides,  it  would  be  a  fufficient  De- 

fenfe  for  me  to  fay,  that  it  is  one  thing  to  contra- 
dict the  Apologias  in  Matters  of  Opinion,  and  ano- 
ther 

*'  fimiles  funtalicujus  dei  veftri,  quern  neminem  integrum  a  crimine 
*'  aut  fvitio  probare  poteritis,  nifi  hominem  negaveritis,  &c."  Ter- 
tull.  Apol.  c.  1 1 .  N.B.  Nay,  I  am  not  confcious  of  having  faid 
any  thing  on  this  Point  more  than  the  Enquirer  himfelf  had 
faid.     Thefe  are  his  own  Words :  "  If  it  can  be  proved,  that 

"  many  of  the  Heathen  Deities were  nothing  but  mere  ima- 

U. ginary Beings,  who  never  did  in  fact  exift  at  all."- Firfi 

Enq.  p.  12.  Whoever  will  confult  the  PafTage,  will  find,  that 
this  Writer  more  than  feems  to  imagine  this. 

w  I  find  in  the  Farth.  Enquiry,  p.  29.  an  Inftance  which  well 
enough  explains  this.  Diogenes  Laertius  is  quoted  to  fhew  the 
Sentiments  of  the  Egyptians,   "  that  the  Sun  and  Moon  were  Gods, 

*'  and  that  the  former  was  called  Ofiris,  the  latter  Ifis but" 

(adds  this  Writer)  "  it  is  well  known,   that  Ifis  and  Ofiris . 

"  were  great  Men  deified — ."  See  alfo  p.  16.  And  alfo  Shuck- 
ford's  Connexion,  Vol.  II.  p.  225,  298.  and  Vol.  III.  p.  57.  where 
he  tells  us,  that  the  Ancients  ufed  to  call  their  Kings  and  famous 
Men  by  the  Names  of  the  Luminaries,  Elements,  cifr .  which 
were  their  Gods. 


[25  ] 

ther  to  oppofe  their  direct  Testimony  in  Matters  of 
Fatt.  With  regard  to  the  former,  fuch  efpecially 
as  do  not  relate  to  their  own  Religion,  they  might 
miftake.  With  regard  to  the  latter^  fuch  efpecially 
as  occurred  to  them  frequently,  I  don't  fee  how 
their  Witnefs  can  be  refufed,  if  they  had  common 
Senfe  and  common  Honefty. 

II.  There  remains  now  nothing  relating  to 
Heathen  Authorities  for  me  to  confider.  We  muft 
therefore  proceed  to  view  what  has  been  faid  with 
regard  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  here,  as  I  ob- 
ferved  before,  the  Review  gives  me  but  little  Trou- 
ble. He  objects  only  to  my  Explications  of  four 
Texts,  but  one  of  which  relates  directly  to  the 
Gofpel  PoffeJJions  •,  and  I  can  fee  no  manner  of  Dif- 
ficulty in  vindicating  thefe.  The  firft  is  Rev.  ix.  20. 
On  this  Text  I  had  declared,  that  I  had  "  no  Skill 
"  in  expounding  thefe  Parts  of  the  Revelations" 
and  therefore  "  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  look  into 
<c  fbme  of  the  moft  learned  Commentators*."  For 
this  the  Gentleman  is  pleafed  to  ridicule  me;"  An 
"  excellent  Method  (fays  he)  of  finding  out  the 
**  Meaning  of  a  Word7!  "  And  truly,  in  fuch  a 
Cafe,  I  do  not  know  a  better.  The  Meaning  of 
fcuuoviot  here  muft,  I  apprehend,  be  found  out  by 
considering  the  Context,  and  the  Subjects  treated  of. 
In  thefe  Prophetical  Parts  of  this  Book  I  am  not 
afhamed  to  own  my  Ignorance :  And  why  I  might 
not  give  the  Senfe  of  Grotius,  Hammond,  &c.  as 
well  as  the  Farther  Enquiry  that  of  Mr.  Mede,  I 
can't  imagine.  But  I  am  charged  with  mifre- 

prefenting  Grotius 1  am  willing  to  be  tried  by 

the  Reviewer's  own  Tranflation.  On  thefe  Words 
of  St.  John,  that  they  Jhould  not  worfhip  Devils  [$cu- 
povia]  and  Idols  of  Gold  and  Silver,  Grotius  fays, 
"  The  People  of  Jerufalem  were  all  in  a  myftical 
"  Senfe  Idolaters ;  they  ferved  Money,  Jewels,  &V." 
Now  it  is  afked,  "  Allowing  all  this,  does  Scupmov 

"  fignify 

*  Repfy,  d.  50.  I  Rev.  p.  31. 


[  26  ] 

**  fignify  Money*?"  I  anfwer,  that  this  was  what 
Grotius  imagined  the  Word  to  refer  to,  or  elfe  he 
has  given  no  Senfe  of  it  at  all. 

I  n  the  fame  Page  I  am  called  in  queftion  for 
having  given  the  Reader  the  Remarks  of  Dr.  Ham- 
mond, Erafmus,  and  St.  Jerom  on  i  Tim.  iv.  i. 
"  See  here,  fays  the  Review,  the  true  Art  of  con- 
u  founding  all  things !  As  if  the  oppofing  a  Name 
"  were  the  Confutation  of  an  Opinion  ! 3J  And  yet 
it  is  very  extraordinary,  that  on  this  very  Text  the 
Name  of  the  excellent  and  judicious  Mr.  Mede  was 
cppofed*,  which  I  believe  the  Gentleman  thought 
at  leaft  a  Confirmation  of  his  own  Opinion.  And 
therefore,  becaufe  I  would  not  feem  to  oppofe  my 
ielf  to  Mr.  Mede,  as  well  as  becaufe  his  Interpreta- 
tion was  reprefented  as  "  brought  even  to  a  De~ 
*c  monftration,"  I  thought  it  proper,  ncr  can  I 
yet  fee  any  Harm  in  it,  to  fet  before  the  Reader 
another  Interpretation  of  Authors  of  as  great  Name, 
and  tv/o  of  them  of  greater  Antiquity  than  Mr. 
Mede.  Indeed,  were  there  any  Demonftration,  I 
entirely  agree  that  it  would  be  abfurd  to  mention 
any  Authorities  againft  it.  But  all  are  not  Demon- 
firations  which  are  called  fo. 

The  Review  goes  on,  "  How  did  Jerom  know, 
"  that  all  Herefy  was  framed  by  the  Art  of  Demons  ? 
"  Or  how  did  Erafmus  know,  that  Devils  brought 
"  in  their  falfe  Doctrines  in  the  Manner  he  fays  ?'* 
What  has  warmed  the  Gentleman,  I  can't  tell. 
But,  like  a  Man  in  fome  Degree  of  Paffion,  he 
feems  to  fall  foul  on  all  he  meets.  Now,  me- 
thinks,  it  was  very  pardonable  in  Men,  who  un- 
derftood  Demons  of  Devils,  to  afcribe  Herejies  to> 
them.  But  "  could  not  Men  frame  Herefies  by 
<c  their  own  natural  Powers  ?"  Not,  I  hope,  by  a 

right  Ufe  of  their  natural  Powers. "  Might 

c<  they  not  do  it  by  Miftakes?"     They  are  not 
furely  obliged  to  perfiil  in,  and  to  fpread,  their  Mif- 

i  takes* 

2  Review,  p.  32,      *  Farther  Enquiry,  p.  46. 


1 <7  3 

takes.  Err  are  pojfum,  &c .  c « What  Evidence  is  there, 
*'  that  Herefies  were  owing  to  Devils  ?"  This  very- 
Text,  I  humbly  prefume  *,  unlefs  our  Interpretation 
of  it  can  be  fhewn  to  be  falfe  or  abfurd.     Befides, 
St.  Paul  numbers  Herefies  among  the  Works  of  the 
Flejhy  Gal.  v.  20.  St.  Peter  calls  them  damnable,  2  Ep. 
ii.  1.  And  St.  John  aflures  us,  that  he  that  committeth 
Sin,  any  Sin,  is  of  the  Devil,   1  Ep.  iii.    8. 
<c  May  not  the  Wickednefs,  the  Pride,  the  Errors 
"  of  Men   be   the  Sources   of  falfe  Doctrines  ? n 
And  may  not  fuch  Wickednefs,  Pride,   and  Er- 
rors proceed  from  their  hearkening  to  the  evil  Sug- 
geftions  and  Delufions  of  Satan  ?  — "  Yes,  but  the 
"  Apoftle  fays,  f educing  Spirits,  as  if  evil  Spirits  were 
<c  the  great  Seducers  of  Men."    Such  they  have  al- 
ways been  thought,  and  fuch,   I  apprehend,  they 
were  allowed  to  be  by  the  Enquirer  himfelf,    "  Mo- 
<c  ral  Evils  they  may  defire  to  do b."    I  muft  there- 
fore refer  this  Gentleman  to  his  Friend  for  an  An- 
fwer,  who  I  hope  will  tell  him,  that  to  J educe  Men 
is  a  moral  Evil c.     "  But  what  if  Spirits  be  here 

"  taken  for  Doctrines  themfelves or  Seducers?" 

There  is  no  Neceflity  fo  to  take  them.  And  farther, 
the  Word  Devils,  which  follows,  can't  be  fo  taken. 
— In  a  Word,  there  is  nothing  forced  in  the  Inter- 
pretation which  I  am  vindicating.  The  Phrafeo- 
logy  of  Scripture  fufficiently  juftifies  it.  As,  the 
JDocJrine  of  God  ouRSAViouRdisan  Expreffion 
ufed  by  St.  Paul  to  denote  the  Dofirine  which  He 

b  Farther  Enquiry,   p.  79. 

c  I  obferve  that  the  Review,  pag.  26,  27.  argues  largely 
"  againft  the  Notion  of  any  Seductions  by  evil  Spirits.  All  which 
Reafoning  will  hold  equally  ftrong  againft  the  Temptations  and 
Delufions  of  Satan,  which  the  Scriptures  have  in  fo  many  Places 
mentioned.  See  Epb.il.  2.  2  Cor.  iv.  4.  Matt.xnx.  19,  39. 
iv.  1,  &c.  Eph.  vi.  11,  12.  I  Pet.  v.  8,  9.  2  Cor.  xi.  3. 
I  Tbejf.  iii.  5.  2  Cor.  ii.  11.  Jam.'w.  7.  2  Tim.  ii.  26. 
Rev.  xii.  9.  and  many  others.  I  only  refer  to  thefe  Paflages, 
becaufe  the  part  of  the  Review,  which  occafions  my  mentioning 
them,  is  not  applied  to  inc.  d  Tit.  ii.  10. 

taught ; 


[28] 

taught ;  (6  there  is  no  Reafon  why  we  mould  not 
understand  the  fame  Apoftle's  Expreflion,  Doclrines 
of  Devils ,  in  a  like  Senfe,  viz.  that  thefe,  who  are 
properly  /educing  Spirits,  were  the  Authors  and 
Suggefters  of  thofe  unjuft  Prohibitions  of  Marriage 
and  Meats,  which  are  exprefsly  mentioned  as  the 
Doclrines  taught. 

I  have  particularly  confidered  thefe  feveral 
Queftions  of  the  Review,  becaufe  at  the  Clofe  of 
them  he  talks  of  the  "  Arts  made  ufe  of  to  refute 
"  the  Enquiry,  without  Reafon,  or  Pretence  of  it e." 
The  Reader  is  now  to  judge  of  the  Jufinefs,  as  well 
as  Decency  of  this  Reflection. 

Th  e  Reply  laboured  to  frrew f ,  that  Acls  xvii. 
1 8.  could  not  be  accommodated  to  the  Enquirer's 
Purpofe,  not  only  becaufe  St.  Luke  was  not  fpeak- 
ing  his  own  Senfe,  not  only  becaufe  the  Refurrec- 
tion  here  mentioned  does  not  certainly  mean  that  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  but  alfo  becaufe  a  Man  raifed  to 
Life  again,  and  confifting  both  of  Soul  and  Body,  was 
very  different  from  a  departed  Soul.  The  two  firft 
of  thefe  Reafons  (land  unanfwered.  To  the  laft 
fomething  is  urged,  the  Purport  of  which  I  am  not 
fure  that  I  underftand.  However,  I  will  lay  it  be- 
fore the  Reader.  "  When  the  firft  Chriftians  af- 
*  ferted  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  &c.  to  have  been 
«c  Men,  and  after  Death  to  have  been  made  Gods, 
"  was  the  Point  about  their  being  alive  both  Soul 
"  and  Body  ?  When  Hefiod  fays,  that  when  a  cer- 
"  tain  Generation  of  Men  died,  they  became  De- 

"  mons Did  it   make  a  queftion,  whether 

"  they  had  Bodies,  or  notg?"  If  there  be  any 
thing  in  thefe  Words  in  Anfwer  to  what  I  had 
urged,  this  muft,  I  think,  be  intended  by  them ; 
that  the  Heathen  Demons  were  fuppofed  to  confift 
both  of  Soul  and  Body.  But  neither  will  this  Ac- 
count for  our  Saviour's  being  called  by  the  Epi- 
cureans 

«  IU<vie<w,  p.  33.     [  Reply,  p.  55,  56.      t  Review,  p.  34. 


4  4 
44 
44 
(C 


[  29  J 

cureans  and  Stoicks  a  Demon,  becaufe  of  his  Refur- 
reclion,  unlefs  thefe  Philofophers  alfo  imagined, 
that  their  own  Demons  had  rifen  from  the  Grave, 
and  appeared  on  Earth,  in  their  proper  Bodies.  And 
will  the  Reviewer  afTert  this  ?  Whence  then  all 
thofe  Prejudices  which  the  Heathens  entertained 

againft  the  Poffibility  of  a  Refur  reclion  ? Be- 

fides,  it  is  a  flat  Contradiction  to  both  the  Enquiries, 
to  fuppofe  that  the  Heathen  Demons  were  embodied. 
In  thofe  they  are  called  the  Souls  of  departed  Men, 
frequently  Ghofts h,  and  once,  one  would  think 
with  a  View  to  exclude  that  Suppofition,  the 
Ghosts  of  dead  Men,  the  very  Ghosts  of  Men 
unbodied.  Nay,  in  another  place  !  we  have  this 
Account  of  the  Heathen  Notions,  "  They  thought 
— either  that  they  [Souls]  continued  as  long  as 
the  Body  could  be  preferv'd,  separate  f  rom 
all  Body  -,  and  when  that  was  deftroyed,  that 
then  they  animated  other  Bodies  : "  [in  which 
Cafe  fure  they  were  no  Demons']  "  or  that  they 
c*  went  into  aerial  or  etherial  Manfions  for  certain 
"  Years."  Accordingly  Hefiod's  Demons  were  fcca 
ioWjuJjuoi,  clothed  with  Air.  And  the  Ancients  ima- 
gined them  to  be  inviftble  Beings,  &c k.  I  had  then 
very  good  Reafon  to  think,  that  if  fcupovtov  In 
Acls  xvii.  1 8.  be  applied  to  our  Lord,  zsraifed 
again,   we  have  here  a  new  Senfe  of  the  Word. 

That  fome  Actions  and  Vices  are  by  the  Poets 
afcribed  to  Jupiter,  &c.  which  fuppofe  their  hav- 
ing human  Bodies,  is  indeed  true:  But  then  it  is  as 
true,  that  the  fame  Poets  give  other  Defcriptions 
of  them,  which  effectually  deftroy  fuch  a  Suppofi- 
tion. To  reconcile  them  with  themfelves  is  an  im- 
pofTibie  Taik  :  And  on  this  very  Account  I  think 
them  the  moft  unfit  Guides  to  the  undemanding  of 
the  Scriptures. 

My  Way  of  accounting  for  the  Difficulty  which 
the  Enquirer  laid  fo  much  Strefs  upon,  that  the 
Legion  was  fpoken  of,  and  to,  as  an  unclean  Spirit, 

*Far.Enq.  p.  1 8, 20,  23,  24.     '*  lb.  p.  66.     *  Firft  Ay.  p.  11. 


I  3°  J 

remains  to  be  vindicated.     On  this  I  obferved,  that 
"  the  Evangelifts  fometimes  fpeak  of  the  whole  Body 
"  of  them  collectively  in  the  Singular  Number,  and 
li  fometimes  diftinclly  in  the  Plural."    And  for  an 
In  fiance  of  fimilar  Expreffion,   I  referred  to  and 
cited  Deut.  xii.  i '.     The  Subftance  of  the  Gentle- 
man's Anfwer  to  this  is,  that  tho'  a  Nation  may  be 
fpoke  to  in  the  Singular  Number,    yet  Spirits  can- 
not •,  that  it  "  is  impoflible  in  any  Language,   to 
"  make  the  fame  Word  fignify  an  Individual  and 
"  a  Collection  of  Individuals  of  the  fame  Species  ;" 
and  that  <c  allowing  this,  this  would  not  account 
"  for  the  Expreffion,   Thou  unclean  Spirit,    when 
cc  unclean  Spirits  were  prefent  m."     Here  this  Gen- 
tleman  muft   be   reminded  once   more,   that  the 
Evangelifts   actually   in   their  own  Names  ufe  this 
Language  ;  that  the  Difficulty  therefore  is  pointed 
directly  to  them -■>  and  that  whether  my  Solution  of 
it  be  allowed,  or  not,  nothing  can  be  plainer  than 
this,  that  the  Scheme  of  the  Enquirer  will  no  way 
clear  it.     For  can  we  imagine,  that  the  Evangelifts 
would  them/elves  ufe  the  Language  of  Madmen? 
And  yet,   that  according  to  the  Scheme  of  the  En- 
quirer they  did  fo,  he  has  been  told  already  n,  nor 
has  he  yet  attempted  to  difprove  it. 

But  I  am  far  from  being  out  of  Hope  of  vin- 
dicating my  own  Way  of  anfwering  the  Difficulty. 
And  I  think,  any  Body  or  Number  of  Beings  may 
be  properly  defcribed  as  one  fuch  Being,  provided 
nothing  is  faid  of  this  one,  but  what  is  equally  ap- 
plicable to  all.  The  Words  a  Jew  fignify  as  much 
an  Individual,  as  the  Words  a  Man,  or,  an  unclean 
Spirit.  And  yet  when  St.  Paul  faid,  Behold,  thou 
art  called  a  Jew  °,  it  will  not  be  thought  that  he 
addreffied  himfelf  to  any  one  particular  Perfon  -, 
nor  is  there  any  Difficulty  in  conceiving,  that  the 
Expreffion  includes  a  Colleclion  of  Individuals.     A 

1  Rqfyy  p.  71.     m  fa-view,  p.  56.     J[Vid.  Eflaj,  p,  60,65. 
•  Ram.n.  17. 

Jew 


[3*] 

Jew  then,  though  no  Noun  of  Number ',  is  here  the 
fame  as  ye  Jews.  And  thus  a  Legion  of  Devils  may 
without  any  Abfurdity  be  reprefented  as  an  unclean 
Spirit,  if  what  is  predicated  of  one  does  equally  re- 
late to  all.  Why  may  not  "  a  Spirit  fignify  a  col- 
"  lective  Body  of  Spirits"  as  well  as  a  Jew  Sig- 
nify a  collective  Body  of  Jews? 1  mall  only 

trouble  the  Reader  with  one  Inftance  more,  where 
the  Change  of  Number  is  very  obfervable.     This  is 

in  Gene/is  xix.  1 5.     The  An  gels  haftned  Lot 

And  it  came  to  pafs  when  they  had  brought  them 
forth  abroad,  that  h  e  faid And  Lot  faid  unto 

THEM,    Oh,    not fi,    MY  LORD,    &C? 

Before  I  conclude,  it  may  be  proper  to  obferve, 
that  by  the  Refietlion  which  the  Review*  complains 
of,  it  was  not  my  Intention  to  reprefent  the  Enquirer 
as  a  Deift,   or  one  who  concurred  with  Woolfton  in 
his  wicked  Defign.    That  he  laid  a  great  Strefs  on  a 
trifling  Difficulty,  which  this  Blafphemer  had  raifed, 
is  certain.     He  exprefsly  declared  againft  the  Solu- 
tions which  learned  Men  had  given,  tho'  thefe  were 
really  as  plain  and  ftrong  as  could  be  given  in  any 
cafe.     In  a  Word,  they  were  not  fo  much  the  Ex- 
plications of  learned  Men,  as  the  Explications  of  the 
Evangelifts  themfelves,  who,  when  compared  toge- 
ther,  fet  their  own  Meaning  paft  all  Doubt.     To 
rejedt  therefore  thefe,   feemed  to  me  to  be  fo  far 
"  joining  the  Cry  of  the  Infidels,"   reviving  their 
Objections,  and  ferving  their  Caufe.    This  Gentle- 
man I  fuppofe  imagin'd,  that  his  own  Scheme  would 
effectually  anfwer  the  Difficulty.    I  mall  not  at  pre- 
fent  difpute  this.     Yet  furely  it  would  have  better 
become  a  Chriftian  to  have  offered  this  Anfwer, 
without  crying  down  thofe  which  had  been  before 
given  and  approved.     But  to  do  this  in  Terms,  in 
ordet  to  introduce  a  novel  Scheme,   clogged  with 

P  Grotius  on  1  Mac.  xiii .  5 1 .  fofyas  piy**,  has  this  Remark, 
Lnallage  mmeri.  [Praefidiarios  enim  illos  arcis  intelligit,  qui 
Ifraeli  plurimum  nocuerant.  Here  a  l^umber  is  reprefented  as 
.one  Enemy,  \  Review,  p.  64. 


[  32  J 

many  and  great  Difficulties",  "which  had  remaiii'd  un- 
anfwei'd,  was  indeed  making  this  Scheme  neceffary, 
but,   I  fear,  at  the  Expence  of  the'  Chriftian  Caufe 
I  mu$  agafti  repeat  it,   that  I  do  not  "believe  our 
Author  defign'd  any  Injury  to  this.    But  I  may  add, 
in  the  excellent  Words  of  a  Prelate  of  our  own 
Church,  that  "  when  Do£brines,  whatever,  the  Inr 
"  tention  of  propagating  them  be,  appear  inconf.ft* 
*<  ent  either  with  the  Whole,  or  any  part  of  our  Re- 
<c  ligion,  it  is  noUudraritablenefs,,butour  Duty,  to 
"  lay  open  theFaliehooji  and  the  Danger  of  them  V 
I   now  once  mo*©--take  leave  of  this  Subject, 
having  found  this  gooi:Effe&  from  the  Pains  I  have 
taken,  the  being  thoroughly  perfuaded  my  felf  of 
the  Truth  of  the  literal  Senfe.    The  Review  has  nojt 
attempted   to  fhew  the  Pertinency  of  the  Heathen 
Authorities,   has  not  vindicated  the  Interpretations 
of 'the  Enquirer,  nor  offered  any  new  fufUcient  An- 
fwers  to  the  chief  Difficulties  which  lye  againft  his 
Scheme.    If  this  Gentleman,  or  any  other,  will  re- 
confide r  this  Matter,  will  reconcile,  all  the  Inconfii- 
tencies  of  'Pagan  Writers  when  they/fpeak  of  De~ 
tnons,  will  prove    that   the  Scriptures   must    be 
underilood  according  to  ih/ir  Senfe,   will  give  us 
-Tome  good  Rcafon  why  -the.  Fathers   may  not  be 
called  in  as  good  Interpreters  of  the  Scripture  Mean- 
I  of  the  Word,  will  ihew  us  which  of  them  it  was 
al  firtf  invented,  the  new  Scheme  of  Demcnology^  will 
fairly  vindicate  the  Enquirer's  Interpretation  of  the 
Paflages  in  the  LXX,  where  Scupoviov  is  mentioned, 
and  Most  especially  thofe  in  the  Go/pels^  where 
'■PoJjeffvAisw^  \  whoever,  I  fay,  will  modeftly 

deavour  to. do  all  this,    may  defer ve  for  fuoh  an 
t  tempt /Attention  and  Regard.    But 
it  can  be  to  no  purpole   to  go  on  heaping  up  dif- 
pitfefl  Author^  i  laving  over  and  over  things 

which  have  already  had  their  Anfwers.  For  ev^ry 
ferious  Man  knows  that  a  weak  Argument  can  gain 
no  new  Strength  from  its  being  even  ten  thoufand 
times  repeated. 


V 


DISSERTATION 


O  N    T  H  E 


DEMONIACS 


IN    T  H  E 


GOSPELS. 


v*? 


•i  -.  , 


LONDON: 

Printed  for  John  and  Francis  Rivington,  at  the  BibU 
and  Crown  (N°  62)  in  St.  Paul's  Church- Yard, 

M.DCC.LXXV. 
f  Price  One  Shilling.  ] 


ADVERTISEMENT 

T  O    T  H  E 

READER. 


TH  E  following  Diflertation  is 
one  of  many,  which  in  due 
time  may  fee  the  light.  It  was  thought 
proper  to  {Ingle  this  from  the  reft, 
and  to  print  it  at  this  time  and  in  this 
manner,  fome  things  having  lately 
been  publifhed  contrary  to  the  do&rin 
herein  contained,  and  contrary  (as  it 
is  conceived)  to  the  truth  of  the  gofpel. 
The  Author  is  too  far  advanced  in 
life,  and  has  too  much  other  bufinefs 
upon  his  hands,  to  engage  in  any 
controverfy  about  it.  It  muft  ftand 
or  fall  by  its  own  merit :  If  right^ 
it  will  wrant  no  vindication ;  if  wrong, 
it  deferves  none. 

ADIS- 


[  I.i 


A 

ISSERTATION 

O  N    f  H  £ 

DEMONIACS; 

N  reading  the  gofpels,  I  make  no  doubt, 
it  hath  happened  to  many  others  as 
well  as  to  myfelf,  that  they  have  beeii 
ftruck  with  the  accounts  of  the  demoniacs  or 
jperfons  poiTefTed  with  devils,  and  have  won- 
dered within  themfelves  what  kind  of  beings 
thefe  demons,  and  what  fort  of  diforders 
thefe  poffeflions  could  be.  We  do  not  read 
of  fo  many  cafes  of  this  kind  either  before 
or  after  this  period,  neither  do  we  certainly 
know  of  any  fuch  inftances  at  prefent : 
And  why  fhould  they  abound  fo  much  more 
at  this  time  than  at  any  other,  and  yet  the 
jews  fpeak  not  of  them  as  any  matter  of 

B  furprife 


I       A   DISSERTATION 

furprife  or  novelty,  but  as  things  not  un- 
ufual  among  them  ?  They  exprefs  much 
wonder  at  our  Saviour's  manner  of  curing 
thefe  diforders,  but  none  at  the  diforders 
themfelves,  as  if  they  were  not  unaccuftomed 
to  them.  Thefe  queftions  have  been  much 
agitated  among  learned  men,  who  generally 
are  divided  in  two  contrary  opinions,  the 
one  that  thefe  poffeffions  were  real  opera* 
tions  of  devils,  the  other  that  they  were 
nothing  more  than  natural  caufes  and  effects, 
and  were  fuch  diftempers  as  are  incidental 
to  men, .  but  only  with  different  names, 
Now  the  better  to  judge  and  determin  in 
which  fcale  the  truth  preponderates,  we 
muff:  hold  the  balance  with  an  even  hand, 
incline  neither  to  the  one  fide  nor  to  the 
other,  bat  weigh  and  examin  things  with 
deliberation  and  by  degrees. 

I.  Our  firft  inquiry  will  naturally  be 
What  kind  of  beings  thefe  demons  were,  and 
confequently  whether  the  word  is  rightly 
tranflated  devils.  In  one  of  the  differtations 
on  the  prophecies,  explaining  that  text  of 
the  doclrins  of  demons  or  devils,  it  was  fhown 

from 


/        :      i 

(i)   Plutarch.  Dion   In  lnhid.  torn  vum  touhcuuv.  *.  t.  A. 

p.  958* 


on  the  DEMONIACS.       3 

from  Plato  and  the  beft  authorities,  that 
demons,  according  to  the  theology  of  the 
Gentiles,  were  middle  powers  between  the 
fovran  Gods  and  mortal  men ;  that  thefe 
demons  were  regarded  as  mediators  and 
agents  between  the  Gods  and  men  $  that  of 
thefe  demons  there  were  accounted  twp 
kinds  3  that  one  kind  of  demons  were  the 
fouls  of  men  deified  or  canonized  after 
death ;  that  the  other  kind  of  demons  were 
fuch  as  had  never  been  the  fouls  of  men, 
nor  ever  dwelt  in  mortal  bodies ;  that  thefe 
latter  demons  may  be  paralleled  with  angels, 
as  the  former  may  with  canonized  faints  ; 
and  as  wre  Chriftians  believe  that  there  are 
good  and  evil  angels,  fo  did  the  Gentiles 
that  there  were  good  and  evil  demons. 
According  to  Plutarch  ( 1 )  c  it  was  a  very 
4  ancient  opinion,  that  there  are  certain 
?  wicked  and  malignant  demons,  who  envy 
1  good  men,  obftruft  their  aftions,  induce 
*  troubles  and  terrors,  to  hinder  them  in 
1  the  purfuit  of  virtue,  left  after  death  they 
'  fhould  be  partakers  of  greater  happinefs 
€  than  they  enjoy/ 

p.  958.  Tom.  1.  Edit.  Parif.  1624.   See  PifTert^tion  XXIII. 
on  the  Prophecies. 

B  2  In 


4       A   DISSERTATION 

In  the  management  of  this  controverfy, 
as  indeed  in  moft  other  controverfies,  the 
arguments  have  been  puPned  too  far  on  both 
fides.  On  one  fide  it  has  been  affirmed  that 
demons  were  nothing  more  than  the  fouls  of 
deceafed  men,  and  never  before  the  coming 
of  Chrifl  flgnified  devils  or  malicious  beings, 
malevolent,  hurtful  to  mankind,  delighting 
in  promoting  wickednefs.  On  the  other 
fide  it  has  been  afferted,  that  the  word  demon 
doth  not  fignify  a  departed  foul  either  in 
the  Claffics  or  in  the  Scriptures.  But  both 
parties,  as  I  apprehend,  are  greatly  miftaken. 
For  there  are  other  demons  befides  the 
fouls  of  deceafed  men,  noxious  evil  demons, 
and  fo  called  before  our  Saviour's  time; 
and  there  are  inftances  of  the  word  demon 
fignifying  a  departed  foul  both  in  the  Claffics 
and  in  the  Scriptures,  though  perhaps  oftener 
in  the  former  than  in  the  latter.  In  the 
differtation  above  mentioned  it  hath  been 
proved  from  Hefiod  Plato  and  other  autho- 
rities, that  good   men  after  death  become 

demons 

(2)    &.c£.\\JLr>va.t,  oi.  acriac,   roil   \vyyn.%\%   von  hfeoca;  race  viya^iefjavaq 
^\'vXot<>   Tu*  atQftiiruv'  ccFaQtn;  {asv    ra;  afaOaj,    *axa$  01  too;  tpavXag,. 

.Apud  Athenag.  Legat.  pro  ChrifHanis.  p.  25.     Aa^>»< 


pn  the  DEMONIACS.      5 

jdemons,  good  beings,  guardians  of  mortal 
men,  and  authors  of  good  to  mankind;, 
and  wicked  men  after  death,  by  parity  of 
reafon,    muft  become  other  demons,   evil 
beings,  tempters  of  mortal  men,  and  au- 
thors of  evil  to  mankind.    That  there  were 
wicked  and  malignant  demons,  obftru6ling 
and  envying  the  virtue  and  happineis  of 
men,  was,  according  to  Plutarch  in  the  fore- 
cited  paffage,  a  very  ancient  opinion,  tm 
wavy  TtruXatcov  •  and  confequently  an  opinion 
that  prevailed  before  our  Saviour's   time. 
Thales,  one  of  the  firft  and  beft  of  the  Greek 
philofophers,  diftinguifheth  between  demons 
and  heroes,  (2)  affirming  demons  to  bq  fpi- 
ritual  fubftances,  and  heroes  to  be  the  fouls 
of  men  feparated  from  bodies,  fome  good 
andfome  bad.     In  Homer,  Pindar,  Ocellus 
Lucanus  and  others,  philofophers  as  well  as 
poets,  mention  is  often  made  of  the  hate- 
ful and  evil  demon,    and  of  evil  demons, 
xuxoSaipoveg ;    and  the  like  properties  and 
adlions  are  afcribed  tp  them,  which  we  com- 
monly attribute  to  evil  angels.     The  very 

vTtu^m  &<ria<;  ^vyj.v.a.c,   uton  h  yon  Yiftoca;    rat;  x.tp/upio'pBiia.t;  ^vva.$ 

tw  aupaSw.     Plut.  de  Placit.  Philofoph.  Lib.  i.  Cap.  8. 
p.  882.  Edit.  Parif.  1624. 

etymology 


6       A   DISSERTATION 

etymology  of  the  word  in  fome  meafure 
evinces  what  kind  of  beings  they  were  ac- 
counted. For  the  moft  probable  derivation 
of  it  is  from  a  word  fignifying  learned, 
knowing,  Jkilful  &C  ;  Satpovsg  quafi  Sccuj^oves 
fays  (3)  Plato,  as  if  they  were  beings  of 
fuperior  knowlege.  (4)  Proclus  on  Hefiod, 
and  the  Scholiaft  on  Homer  fay  that  they  are 
called  demons  as  knowing  all  things,  or  as 
being  the  difpenfers  and  diftributers  of  good 
and  evil  things  to  men,  the  word  Sottu  figni- 
fying to  divide  as  well  as  to  learn.  Eufe- 
bius  propofes  another  derivation,  and  fays 
(5)  that  they  are  fitly  called  demons  from 
Ssipaiveiv,  filling  men  with  fears  and  terrors. 
Here  then,  without  multiplying  more  quo- 
tations, are  fufikient  evidences  from  the 
Claffics,  that  the  word  demon  dothfometimes 
fignify  a  departed  foul,  and  that  there  are  other 
demons  befides  departed  fouls,  of  a  fuperior 
nature,  fome  good  and  beneficial,  others 
evil  and  hurtful  to  mankind,  and  fo  named 
before  the  coming  of  Chrift. 

(3)  Flat,  in  Cratylo.  p.  398.  Edit.  Serrani.  Vol.  !. 

(4)  Proclus  in  Hefiod.  Uapu  to  £a*)K«i  ra  'srccnu,  v>  p-tfi^M 
vet  otfudx  kcu  xaxa  Ton;  avD|J<ywc»?.  In  Iliad.  I.  222.  Aayiovas 
xa"Ku  t«;  Se»c,  *]1oi  ^atfxovaq'  E^Trapoi  yag  xai  to^uj  tsuuav  uviov  navi^ 
n  ote  oiulrjea  tut  xa»  c\o»K'/?lai  7V*  Mfytiituv, 

But 


on  the  D  EM  ONI  ACS.      ? 

But  the  right  notion  of  demons  is  to  be 
drawn,  not  from  the  Claffics,  but  from  the 
Scriptures,  which  are  the  fource  and  ftandard 
of  all  true  demonology  as  well  as  of  all  true 
theology.  Now  in  the  Scriptures  it  muft 
be  admitted  that  the  word  demons  moll 
ufually  fignifies  devils :  but  in  the  forefaid 
differtation  fbme  inftances  are  produced  to 
the  contrary,  to  fhow  that  the  worfhipping 
of  demons  is  the  worfhipping  of  the  dead, 
chiefly  out  of  St.  Paul,  who  being  the  moft 
learned  of  all  the  apoftles,  and  fpeaking  and 
writing  to  the  Greeks,  might  exprefs  himfelf 
in  accommodation  to  their  notions.  I  would 
not  repeat  what  has  been  faid  elfewhere; 
but  thefe  inftances  excepted,  the  fignification 
of  the  word  is  fo  clear  in  other  places,  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  being  rightly 
tranflated  devils.  The  text  of  St.  James 
(II.  19.)  "  The  demons  believe  and  tremble" 
cannot  with  propriety  be  applied  to  anjr 
other  beings,  nor  well  admit  any  other  tran- 
flation  than  "  The  devils  believe  and  tremble." 

.(5)  Ov  <&ap6t  to  da»f/o»a$  mat — cfr&tx  vtotpa  to  Supctutw,  Intg 
Esfeb.  Prsep.  Evang.  Lib.  4.  Cap.  5,  p.  142.  Edit.  Vigeri. 

In 


8       A  DISSERTATION 

In  the  gofpels;  wherein  is  the  moft  frequent 

mention  of  demoniacs,   the  fame  that  are 

named  demons  are  named  alfo  Jptrits,  and 

unclean  fpirits>  and  evil  and  wicked  fpir its. 

So  St.  Matthew  (XII.  43,-   45.)   and  St: 

Luke  (XI.  24,  26.)   "  When  the  unclean 

"  fpirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man,—  he  taketh 

"  to  him  k\tn  other  fpirits  more  wicked 

<c  than  himfelf."     There  was  in  the  fyna- 

gogue,  "  a  man  with  an  unclean  fpirit,'* 

faith  St.  Mark  (I.  23,  &c.)  "  which  had  a 

<c  fpirit  of  an  unclean  demon,"  faith  St. 

Luke;  (IV.  33,  &c.)  "  And  when  the  un- 

"  clean  fpirit  had  torn  him,  he  came  out 

<c  of  him,"  faith  St  Mark;  "  And  when 

"  the  demon  had  thrown  him  in  the  midft, 

cc  he  came  out  of  him,"  faith  St.  Luke: 

and  in  both  the  whole  is  concluded  with 

this  juft  refle&ion  of   all   the   fpeclators^ 

cc  What  thing  is  this  ?    What  a  word  is 

C£  this  ?  for  with  authority  and  power  he 

"  commandeth  the  unclean  fpirits,  and  they 

"  do  obey  him."     When  our  Saviour  called 

his  twelve  difciples,  as  St.  Matthew  relates 

it,  (X.  1.)  "  he  gave  them  power  over  tin- 

cc  clean  fpirits,  and  to  heal  all  manner  of 

cc  ficknefs 


on  the  DEMONIAC  S.      g 

tf  ficknefs  and  all  manner  of  difeafe  '*  the 
fame  thing  is  thus  exprefled  by  St.  Luke, 
(IX.  i.)  "  he  gave  them  power  and  autho- 
cc  rity  over  all  demons,  and  to  cure  difeafes." 
What  in  St.  Mark  is  unclean  fpir 'its,  (IIL  1 1 .) 
"  And  unclean  (pirits,  when  they  faw  him, 
"  fell  down  before  him,  and  cried  faying, 
"  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God/'  in  St.  Luke 
is  demons,  (IV.  41.)  "  And  demons  alfo 
cc  came  out  of  many,  crying  out  and  faying 
"  Thou  art  the  Chrift,  the  Son  of  God," 
What  in  St.  Matthew  (XVII.  18.)  is  a  demon, 
in  St.  Mark  (IX.  25.)  is  zfoulfpirit,  and 
dumb  and  deaf '  fpirit  $  and  in  the  parallel 
place  of  St.  Luke  (IX.  42.)  is  termed  both 
a  demon  and  unclean  fpirit.  St.  Luke  in  the 
fame  breath  as  it  were  lpeaketh  of  evil  fpirits 
and  demons  as  being  the  fame,  (VIII.  2.) 
"  And  certain  women,  which  had  been 
cc  healed  of  evil  fpirits  and  infirmities,  Mary 
"  called  Magdalene,  out  of  whom  went 
<c  feven  demons."  St.  Matthew  in  like 
manner,  (VIII.  16.)  "  When  the  even  was 
<c  come,  they  brought  unto  him  many  that 
<{  were  poflefled  with  demons,  and  he  caft 
"  out  the  fpirits  with  his  word."     In  the 

C  ftory 


jo     A   DISSERTATION 

ftory  of  the  Sy  ro-phenician  woman's  daughter 
(Mark  IX.  25,  26.)  what  is  denominated 
an  unclean  fpir it)  is  called  immediately  after- 
wards a  demon  >  c<  A  certain  woman,  whofe 
"  youngeft  daughter  had  an  unclean  fpirit* 
cc  heard  of  him,  and  came  and  felLat  his 
<c  feet,  (The  woman  was  a  Greek,  a  Syro- 
"  phenician  by  nation)  and  fhe  befought 
"  him  that  he  would  caft  forth  the  demon 
"  out  of  her  daughter."  Other  inftances 
might  be  collected,  but  thefe  are  fufficient 
to  fhow  that  demons  and  Jpirits,  and  foul  and 
unclean  fpirits,  and  evil  and  "wicked  jpirits 
are  fynonymous  terms,  and  are  ufed  pro^ 
mifcuoufly  to  denote  the  fame  beings.  It 
farther  appears  too,  that  demons  are  beings 
of  the  fame  kind,  of  the  lame  nature  as 
Satan  and  Beelzebub,  the  prince  or  chief  of 
the  demons.  For  by  our  Saviour's  argumen- 
tation, when  he  was  accufed  of  calling  out 
demons  by  Beelzebub  the  prince  or  chief  of 
thedemons,  (Matt. XII.  22 — 32.  Mark  III. 
22 — 30.  Luke  XL  14 — 26.)  it  is  plain  to 
demonrtration,  that  carting  out  demons  is 
calling  out  Satan,  that  calling  out  demons 
by  Beelzebub  is  oppofed  to  calling  out  demons 

by 


on  the  DEMONIACS,     u 

by  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  cafting  out  demons 
by  Beelzebub  is  the  fame  as  cafting  out  de- 
mons by  Satan,  that  Satan's  cafting  out  de- 
mom  is  cafting  out  bimfelf,  that  Satan  and 
Beelzebub  are  the  fame,  that  the  demojis,  and 
Satan  and  Beelzebub  the  prince  or  chief  of  the 
demons  are  beings  of  the  fame  nature,  and 
differ  only  in  order  and  degree.  When  the 
Seventy  returned  to  our  Saviour,  (LukeX. 
17,  18.)  "  faying,  Lord  even  the  demons 
"  are  fubje£t  unto  us  through  thy  name ;" 
he  confidered  the  fall  of  demons  as  the  fall  of 
Satan,  as  another  fall  of  angels,  cc  I  beheld 
f*  Satan  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven."  St. 
Peter  fpeaketh  of  the  demoniacs  under  the 
name  and  notion  of  "  opprefTed  with  the 
"  4evil>"  vkq  tx  $iu£o\v,  when  he  told  Cor- 
nelius the  Centurion,  (A6tsX.  38.)  "  how 
M  God  anointed  Jefus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
"  Holy  Ghoft  and  with  power,  who  went 
Ki  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that 
<c  were  opprefTed  of  the  devi],  for  God  was 
<c  with  him."  He  mentions  this  as  one  of 
the  greateft  exertions  of  divine  goodnefs  and 
power.  It  is  evident  then,  that  thek  wicked 
and  unclean  fpir its,  thefe  demons  and  the  prince 

C  2  or 


12      A    DISSERTATION 

or  chief  of  the  demons  are  not  the  foqls  of 
men  or  women  deceafed,  but  are  really  and 
truly  the  devil  and  his  angels:  and  confe- 
quently  that  the  word  demons  is  juftly  and 
properly  tranflated  devils,  efpecially  through- 
out the  gofpels. 

II.  Having  feen  what  kind  of  beings  thefe 
demons  are,  let  us  now  inquire  what  forts 
of  diiTempers  were  ufuaily  attributed  to  their 
influence  and  operation.  Saul's  difprder  is 
exprefly  afcribed  to  this  caufe,  (i  Sam. 
XV I.  14.)  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  de- 
cc  parted  V  .m  Saul,  and  an  evil  fpirit  from 
<c  the  Lord  troubled  him."  Jofephustoo  in 
his  relation  of  this  cafe  often  mentions  the 
demon  or  demons  as  agitating  and  dif- 
turbing  him.  His  cafe  appears  plainly  to 
have  been  of  the  atribilarious  or  melancholy 
kind;  and  according  to  (6)  Rambam,  the 
Jews  call  every  kind  of  melancholy  an  evil 
fpirit. 

Melancholy  and  madnefs  are  nearly 
allied,  and  this  diforder  alfo  was  fuppofed 
to  proceed  from  poffeflion  by  an  evil  fpirit. 

(6)  See  Lightfoot.  Hebrew  Exercitations  on  Luke  XIIF. 
1  J.  Vol.  2.  p.  442. 

The 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     13 

The  Jews  faid  of  our  Saviour,  (John  X.  20.) 
■ c  He  hath  a  devil,  and  is  mad,"  confidering 
the  former  as  the  caufe,  and  the  latter  as  the 
effeft.  Several  aftions  of  the  demoniacs 
fhow  evidently  that  they  were  alfo  mad- 
men; the  fame  fymptoms  are  difcoverable 
in  both.  Take  for  example  (Mark  V.  1, 
&c.  Luke  VIII.  26,  &c.)  "  the  man  who 
ware  no  cloaths,  neither  abode  in  any 
houfe,  but  had  his  dwelling  among  the 
tombs,  and  no  man  could  bind  him,  no 
not  with  chains:  becaufe  that  he  had 
been  often  bound  with  fetters  and  chains, 
and  the  chains  had  been  plucked  afunder 
by  him,  and  the  fetters  broken  in  pieces, 
neither  could  any  man  tame  him ;  and 
always  night  and  day  he  was  in  the 
mountains  and  in  the  tombs,  crying  and 
cutting  himfelf  with  ftones."  Here  are 
all  the  ftrongeft  marks  of  the  fierceft  and 
moft  raging  frenzy ;  but  when  the  devils 
were  departed  out  of  him,  we  find  him 
"  fitting  at  the  feet  of  Jefus,  cloathed  and 
?  in  his  right  mind,"  as  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Luke  both  relate  it.     The  expulfion  of 

the 


i4     A   DISSERTATION 

the  evil  fpirits  was  likewife  the  cure  of  his 
madnefs. 

Epilepfy  is  another  difeafe  which,  as  well 
as  madnefs,  was  imputed  to  the  agency  of 
evil  fpirits.  We  have  a  moft  remarkable 
cafe  of  this  kind  in  the   gofpels,    (Matt. 

XVII.  14 21.  Mark  IX.  17 29.  Luke 

IX.  38 — ^42.)  where  all  the  fymptoms  are 
defcribed  as  particularly  and  as  exaftly  as 
they  could  be  by  a  fkilful  phyfician.  St 
Matthew  defcribes  him  thus,  "  He  is  luna- 
"  tic  and  fore  vexed,  for  oft-times  he  fall- 
"  eth  into  the  fire,  and  oft  into  the  water." 
He  is  called  a  lunatic,  as  his  fits  might  be 
better  or  wprfe  according  to  the  courfe  and 
changes  of  the  moon,  which  as  phyficians 
obferve  is  not  unnfual  in  this  diftemper. 
St.  Luke  thus  reprefents  him,  "  Lo,  a 
"  fpirit  taketh  him,  and  he  fuddenly  crieth 
cc  out,  and  it  teareth  him,  that  he  foameth 
ce  again,  and  bruifing  him,  hardly  depart- 
Ci  eth  from  him."  St.  Mark  is  more  copi- 
ous, "  Wherefoever  the  fpirit  taketh  him, 
"  he  teareth  him,  and  he  foameth,  and 
ct  gnafheth  with  his  teeth,  and  pineth  away. 
cf  This  came  unto  him  of  a  child,  and  oft- 

((  times 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     15 

44  times  it  hath  caft  him  into  the  fire,  and 
<c  into  the  waters,  to  deftroy  him."  When 
he  was  brought  unto  our  Saviour,  "  ftrait- 
"  way  the  fpirit  tare  him,  and  he  fell  on 
"  the  ground,  and  wallowed  foaming."  A 
patient  truly  to  be  pitied,  and  hard  to  be 
cured:  but  upon  Jefus  faying  unto  the 
fpirit,  '*  I  charge  thee  come  out  of  him, 
"  and  enter  no  more  into  him,  the  fpirit 
f<  cried,  and  rent  him  fore,  and  came  out 
u  of  him ;  and  he  was  as  one  dead,  info- 
much  that  many  faid  He  is  dead  -y  but 
Jefus  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  lifted 
him  up,  and  he  arofe."  The  malady 
was  occafioned  by  the  inhabitation  of  an 
evil  fpirit,  and  the  ejedlion  of  that  fpirit 
was  the  remedy.  The  caufe  ceafing,  the 
effeft  ceafed  too. 

Other  diforders  were  afcribed  to  demons 
or  evil  fpirits  befides  the  fore-mentioned  of 
melancholy  and  madnefs  and  epilepfy. 
Job's  difeafe,  which  feemeth  to  have  been 
cuticular,  of  the  leprous  and  ulcerous  kind 
to  a  very  great  degree,  is  faid  to  have  been 
inflidted  by  Satan  through  the  permiffion  of 
God.    (Job  II.  7.)    "  So  went  Satan  forth 

"  from 


16     A  DISSERTATION 

"  from  the  prefence  of  the  Lord,  and  fmote 
"  Job  with  fore  boils  from  the  fole  of  his 
"  foot  unto  his  crown."  Satan  is  alio  repre- 
fented  as  the  caufe  and  author  of  the  crook- 
ed woman's  infirmity  in  the  golpel.  (Luke 
XIII.  ii,  &c.)  "  And  behold,  there  was 
a  woman  which  had  a  fpirit  of  infirmity 
eighteen  years,  and  was  bowed  together, 
and  could  in  no  wife  lift  up  herfelf.  And 
when  Jefus  faw  her,  he  called  her  to  him, 
"  and  faid  unto  her,  Woman,  thou  art 
loofed  from  thine  infirmity  :  And  he  laid 
his  hands  on  her  ->  and  immediately  fhe 
was  made  ftrait,  and  glorified  God."  A 
fpirit  of  infirmity  may  be  thought  an  ambi- 
guous indeterminate  expreflion,  but  the 
meaning  of  it  is  limited  and  afcertained, 
wrhen  this  fpirit  is  explained  immediately 
afterwards  to  be  Satan  (cc  whom  Satan  hath 
"  bound,  lo,  thefe  eighteen  years")  oZotlavuq 
with  the  article,  the  great  enemy  and  ad- 
verfary  of  mankind.  There  are  alfo  de- 
moniacs in  the  gofpel,  who  yetdifcovernot 
the  leaft  tokens  or  figns  of  madnefs.  They 
were  blind  and  dumb,  but  theblindnefsand 
dumbnefs  are  attributed  to  the  pofleffion  of 

evil 


on  the  DEMONIACS.      17 

evil  fpints,  and  the  recovery  to  their 
ejection.  (Matt.  IX.  32,  33.)  "  As  they 
"  went  out,  behold,  they  brought  unto 
£C  him  a  dumb  man  poffeffed  with  a  demon  : 
"  And  when  the  demon  was  caft  out,  the 
£C  dumb  fpake  -,  and  the  multitudes  marvel- 
"  ed,  faying,  It  was  never  fofeen  in  Ifrael." 
(Matt.  Xll.  21.)  "  Then  was  brought 
Ci  unto  him  one  poffeffed  with  a  demon, 
<c  blind  and  dumb  3  and  he  healed  him,  in- 
cc  fomuch  that  the  blind  and  dumb  both 
"  fpake  and  faw." 

But  not  all  Jlich  diforders  did  the  Jews 
afciibe  to  demons  or  evil  fpirits,  but  thofe 
only  which  were  befide  the  common  courfe 
of  nature,  and  attended  with  extraordinary 
fy mptoms.  Madnefs  itfelf  is  fometimes  fpoken 
of  by  its  ufual  name,  without  being  align- 
ed to  any  fupernatural  caufe.  Solomon 
mentions  (Prov.  XXVI.  18.)  "  a  mad 
"  man  who  caffeth  firebrands  arrows  and 
"  death."  Of  St.  Paul  it  is  faid  (A&s 
XXVI.  24.)  that  <f  he  was  befide  himfelf, 
<c  much  learning  had  made  him  mad/' 
Our  Saviour's  relations  faid  of  him  alfo 
(Mark  III.  21,  22.)  "  He  is  befide  himfelf;' 

D  but 


i3      A   DISSERTATION 

but  they  did  not  fay,  as  the  fcribes  did  at 
the  fame  time,  "  He  hath  Beelzebub  -"  the 
former  putting  a  favorable,  the  latter  a  mod 
malicious  conftru&ion  upon  his  actions. 
So  juft  and  true  is  the  observation  of  Gro- 
tius  and  of  our  Lightfoot.  Grotius  (7) 
explains  the  word  demoniacs  to  fignify  not 
common  madmen,  but  fuch  as  were  feifed 
and  agitated  by  the  forcible  violence  of  un- 
clean feints.  Lightfoot  (8)  remarks,  that 
it  was  ufaal  with  the  Jews  to  attribute  to 
evil  fpirits  fome  of  the  more  grievous  dif- 
eafes,  efpecially  thofe,  wherein  either  the 
body  was  convulfed  and  diftorted,  or  the 
mind  was  diiturbed  and  agitated  by  frenzy. 

Neither  were  the  Jews  Angular  in  this 
belief  3  other  ancient  nations  entertained 
fimilar  opinions.  Dr.  Hyde  hath  fully 
evinced  it  with  regard  to  the  Chaldaeans  and 

Per- 

(7)  &*»^o»{mi>«?,  non  quovis  modo  infanientes,  fed  im- 
purorum  fpirituum  vi  majore  correptos  atque  agitatos. 
Grot,  in  Matt.  IV.  24. 

(8)  Lightfoot.  Hebrew  Exerckations  on  Matt.  XVII. 
15.  Vol.  2.  p.  21 1. 

(9)  Medica  Sacra  in  Dr.  Stack's  tranflation.  Cap.  9.  At 
non  Judseis  tantum,  fed  et  aliis  etiam  gentibus,  in  ufu  fuit 
infanos  pro  da±moniacis  habere.  Hinc  apud  Herodotum 
(Lib.  6.  Cap.  84.)  rex  Clcomenes  dicitur  non  ab  ullo  damonio 
ad  infaniam    redaclus,  fed  confuetudinc    cum  Scjthis   ebriofus 

fuijje. 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     19 

Perfians  in   his  learned  hiftory  of  the  reli- 
gion of  the  ancient  Perfians.     The  Greeks, 
and  Romans  called  inline    perfons  Scupo- 
i>io\7]7p,oi,  vvppohyjTfioi,  Lympbatici9    Larvati^ 
Cerriti,  Bacchantes  and  the  like;  as  if  the 
demons,  or  the  nymphs,  or  the  Larvae,  or 
Ceres,  or  Bacchus  were  the  authors  of  their 
calamities,    tho'    what    notions    they  had 
framed  of  thefe  different  beings  we  cannot 
tell,  very  imperfect  ones  we  may  be  certain., 
The  epilepfy  as  well  as  madnefs  was  called 
morbus  facer  a  facred  difeqfe\  as  if  it  were 
caufed  'by    fome   divine    power.     As   Dr. 
Mead  (y)  in  treating  of  the  demoniacs  ob- 
ferves,  "  this  cuftom  of  taking  madmen  for 
"  demoniacs  was  not   fo   peculiar  to  the 
"  jews,   but  that  it  prevailed  in  other   na- 
<c  tions   alio.     Hence  in   Herodotus  king 
"  Cleomenes  is  faid  to  be  driven  into  mad- 

fuijft,  et  intlf.  furhfus.  Cun.qui'  2«i/4o***  idem  figni fleet  ac 
SccifMtK,*  i%tiv,  hoc  verbo  pro  furere  uritur  Xenophor>.  (Me- 
morabi].  Lib.  I.)  Qoin  et  Ariftcphanes  de  coJem  morbo 
gravius  urgente  voceni  xcc:'.t,ccAuo\xv  ufurpat,  et  deterrimum 
infanise  gradum  nnn  (juumt,  fed  •/.an.coca^ouui  efle  prmmnciat. 
(Vide  Plutum,  Act.  2.  Seen.  3.  ver,  38.  et  A&.  2.  Seen.  5. 
ver.  15.)  Hinc  etiam,  at  notat  A  retains,  facer  apud  illos 
diclus  eft  hie  morbus,  quoniam  cl<?innn   aliquis  in  homincm  in- 

De  caufis  morbi  diuturn.  Lib.  1 .  Cap.  4.J 

D  2  cc  nefs, 


20      A    DISSERTATION 

c<  nefs,  not  by  any  demon,  but  by  a  habit 
"  of  drunkennefs,  which  he  had  contracted 
among  the  Scythians,  whereby  he  be- 
came frantic.  And  whereas  ion^ovctv  fig- 
nifies  the  fame  thing  as  Sxipoviov  sx£lv> 
Xenophon  ufes  this  word  for  Jiirere,  to 
be  raging  mad  or  furious.  Moreover 
Ariftophanes,  intending  to  exprefs  a  high 
degree  of  the  fame  difeafe,  employs  the 
word  KcMoSaifjLovaiv,  and  calls  the  higheft 
degree  of  mad  nefs,  not  puviuv,  but  xa*o- 
Saipoviuv.  Hence  a!fo,  as  Aretsus  ob- 
ferves,  this  difeafe  was  called  morbus 
facer,  or  the  facred  difeafe,  becauje  it  "was 
imagined  that  fome  demon  had  entered  into 
"  the  man!*  The  Heathens  therefore  as 
well  as  the  Jews  attributed  thefe  diforders 
to  demons,  the  Jews  by  demons  under- 
ftanding  evil  fpirits  or  devils,  the  Heathens 
fome  beings,  they  knew  not  what,  fuperior 
to  mortal  men.  Jn  fhort,  certain  difeafes, 
which  the  ancients  afcribed  to  fupernatural 
caufes,  many  of  the  moderns  affeft  to  con- 
lider  as  natural  effects. 

III.  The  great  queftion  therefore  is,  and 
the  moft  difficult  to  be  refolved,  whether 

the 


<c 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 

cc 


on  the  DE  M  ON  I  ACS.     21- 

the  modern  or  ancient  opinion  is  more 
agreeable  to  truth  and  reafon,  whether  thefe 
kinds  of  difeafes  were  any  ways  owing  to 
evil  fpirits,  or  may  be  deduced  altogether 
from  natural  caufes.  One  would  not  wil- 
lingly encourage  fuperftition,  Seia-tSai^ovtav 
as  the  word  is  in  Greek,  the  dread  of  de- 
mons, and  fearing  where  no  fear  is ;  but 
at  the  fame  time  one  would  as  carefully 
avoid  the  other  extreme  of  fcepticifm  and 
infidelity,  doubting  of  every  thing,  and  be- 
lieving nothing  but  what  may  be  feen,  and 
proved  even  to  demonftration.  It  betrays  great 
weaknefs  as  well  as  great  lazinefs  in  men  to 
be  too  remifs  in  inveftigating  the  caufes  of 
things,  and  what  they  cannot  readily  com- 
prehend and  eafily  explain,  without  feeking 
farther  to  refer  immediately  to  fomefuperior 
being  as  the  caufe  and  author  -,  but  on  the 
other  hand  it  argues  as  great  vanity  and 
prefumption  to  pretend  to  know  all  caufes, 
and  to  reduce  all  effe&s  to  their  firft  prin- 
ciples, as  if  nothing  was  above  their  level 
and  comprehenfion.  Some  caufes  may  per- 
haps lie  within  the  fphere  of  our  knowlcge  ; 
but  many  more,  I  am  afraid,  are  far  above 

and 


22      A   DISSERTATION 

and  beyond  our  utmoft  reach  and  compafs. 
The  effe6ts  are  feen  and  felt  and  obferved  by 
all  men,  but  the  caufes  lie  deeper  and  more 
remote,  and  cannot  often  be  traced  up  like 
a  river  to  the  fpring-head. 

All  caufes  may  not  improperly  be  reduced 
to  two  kinds,  material  and  fpiritual.  Now 
the  philofophy  of  the  prefent  times  inclines, 
as  I  conceive,  to  attribute  too  much  to  the 
former  and  too  little  to  the  latter.  But 
matter  is  a  dull  dead  lifelefs  thing,  is  always 
paffive  and  (ftrictly  fpeaking)  never  active, 
cannot  of  itfelf  put  itfeif  into  motion,  or 
lay  itfelf  at  reft,  and  much  lefs  can  it  be 
the  proper  and  efficient  caufe  of  any  thing. 
Men  may  talk  of  the  powers  of  matter, 
but  it  hath  really  no  power,  except  what 
the  philofophers  term  the  vis  inertia,  the 
power  of  inertnefs,  the  power  of  doing  no- 
thing of  itfelf.  There  is  not  a  fingle  phe- 
nomenon in  the  material  world,  there  is  not 
a  fingle  motion  or  affection  of  matter,  that 
can  be  accounted  for  any  more  than  attraction 
and  gravity  itfelf,  without  having  recourfe  to 
fome  fpiritual  agent.  Moft  of  the  caufes  and 
effects  which  we  are  acquainted  with  are  but 

fo 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     23 

fo  many  different  modifications  of  matter,  but 
all  thefe  different  modifications  are  effe&ed 
not  by  matter  itfelf  but  by  fpirit.  Matter  at 
beft  can  be  regarded  only  as  a  fecondary, 
and  not  as  a  primary  caufe  -y  the  firft  mover 
muft  be  of  a  higher  clafs  and  order  of  be- 
ings. It  appears  then  that  in  the  material 
world  itfelf  the  firft  the  principal  agent  is 
fpirit ;  and  what  then  muft  it  be  in  the 
world  of  fpirits  ? 

It  is  certain,  there  are  many  more  fpiritual 
beings  in  the  world,  than  men  commonly 
are  aware  of,  or  generally  conceive.  We 
fee  all  the  parts  of  nature  full  of  life  in  the 
vifible  world  around  us,  and  we  may  with 
reafon  therefore  conclude  the  cafe  to  be  the 
fame  in  the  invifible  world  above  us.  The 
earth,  the  fea,  the  air,  and  not  only  all  the 
greater  but  all  the  leffer  portions  of  them, 
as  far  as  we  can  perceive,  are  abundantly 
flocked  with  inhabitants ;  many  of  them 
come  under  our  infpeftion,  by  the  help  of 
glaffes  we  difcover  more  :  but  who  can  tell 
what  numbers  efcape  our  obfervation,  which 
no  eye  no  glaffes  can  reach  ?  There  are 
many  kinds  of  beings  plainly  inferior  to 

man 


«4     A  DISSERTATION 

t 

man,  but  there  muft  be  many  more  fuperior 
to  him.  The  fcale  of  beings  cannot  flop 
at  fuch  an  imperfeft  creature  as  man,  but 
muft  rife  higher  and  higher  towards  per- 
fection, the  fpace  and  interval  above  us  be- 
ing infinitely  greater  than  that  beneath  us. 
We  can  hardly  enumerate  the  different  forts 
and  fpecies  of  creatures  upon  earth •  and 
much  lefs  can  we  frame  any  adequate  con- 
ception of  the  different  degrees  and  orders 
of  fpirits  in  the  heavens,  whofe  variety  is 
infinite,  and  being  fpirits  they  are  not  im- 
mediate objects  of  fenfe,  nor  vifible  to  human 
eyes.  Milton  delivered  the  fentiment  of  all 
antiquity  as  well  as  his  own,  when  he  faid 

Millions  of  fpiritual  creatures  walk  the 

earth 
Unfeen,  both  when  we  wake,  and  when 

we  fleep. 

Two  of  the  greateft  and  wifeft  of  the  ancient 
philofophers,  Thales  and  Pythagoras  (i), 

affirm 

( i )  Tov  zo?(Aot  $<xijjlo¥u»  <a^pr).     Thales  apud  Diog.   Laert. 

p.   1 8.   tncci   3s  rzciila,    rov    atfot   ^/v^a»  t^m^tov.      Pythag.  ibid. 

p.  587.  Edit.  Henr.  Steph.  15  14. 

(2)    Two  raiu*  TrsiATrtcQzi  <tv6pw7ro»j   Ttf$  tj  ompa$,  xcti  to.  Qvpeiat 
*oar*tl*  ko*  tyjnce?.      Pyth.  ibid. 

(3)  €or- 


on  the  DEMONIACS,     Z$ 

affirm  that  the  world  and  air  are  full  of 
demons  and  fouls.  The  fcripture  in  like 
manner  reprefents  the  air  as  the  habitation 
of  demons  -,  and  the  devil  is  therefore  ftiled 
(Eph.  II.  2.)  "  the  prince  of  the  power  of 
"  the  air,"  and  his  angels  are  denominated 
(Eph.  VI.  12.)  "  fpiritual  wickednefs,"  or 
as  it  is  in  the  margin,  "  wicked  fpirits  in 
<£  high  places." 

So  many  demons  and  fpirits,  hovering  and 
wandering  about  in  the  air,  muft  by  their 
natural  abilities  have  the  power  of  doing 
much  hurt  to  the  fouls  and  bodies  of  men, 
unlefs  reftrained  by  the  good  providence  of 
God.  He,  we  may  be  confident,  will  not 
fuffer  one  part  of  his  creation  to  break  loofe 
upon  another  ;  but  he  may  upon  occafion 
make  ufe  of  fome  of  his  creatures  as  inftru- 
ments  of  the  punifhment  of  others.  Pytha- 
goras (peaking  of  demons  in  the  place  above- 
mentioned  (2)  fays,  that  c  by  thefc  dreams 
'  are  fent  to  men,  and  the  prognoftics  of 
■  health  and  ficknefs.' Tertullianlikewife  (3) 

afferts, 

(3)  Corporibus  quidem  et  I'aletudines  inflignnt  et  aliquos 
cafus  acerbos,  animse  vero  repcntlncs  et  extraordinarios  per 
vim  exceffus.     Suppetit  illis   ad  utramque  fubftantiam  ho- 

E  minis 


26      A    DISSERTATION 

aflerts,  that  c  they  inflict  grievous  difeafeS 
c  on  the  body,  and  excite  fudden  and  vio- 
'  lent  commotions  in  the  foul  ->  for  by  the 
1  futtlety  and  finenefs  of  their  nature  they 

*  have  accefs  to  either  fubftanee  of  man. 

*  They   can   do   much   by    their   fpiritual 

*  powers,  fo  that  being  invifible  and  im- 
€  perceptible  to  fenfe  they  appear  rather  in 
1  effedt  than  in  their  aft.'  La£tantius  de- 
fcribes  their  operations  much  after  the  fame 
manner  (4),  that  c  being  fpirits  not  to  be 
4  feen  or  felt  they  irifinuate  themfelves  into 
4  the  bodies  of  men,  and  fecretly  working 
i  within  vitiate  their  health,  excite  difeafes, 
c  terrify  their  minds  with  dreams/  and  the 
like.  Cyprian  afcribes  the  like  effe6ts  to 
them  (5),  c  they  difturb  life,  difquiet 
'  fleep,  and  creeping  fecretly  into  the  bodies 
'  of  men  terrify  their  minds,  diftort  their 
"  limbs,  deftroy  their  health,  and  provoke 
i  difeafes.'    More  teftimonies  might  be  cited 

to 

minis  adoundam  fubtilitas  et  tenutas  fua.  Multum  fpirita- 
libus  viribus  licet  ut  invifibiles  et  infenfibiles  in  affectu  po- 
tins  quam  in  a&u  itfo  appareant.  Tertul.  Apol.  cap.  22. 
p.  21.  Edit.  Kigaltii.  Pafif.  1675. 

(4)   Qui  quoniam  funt  fpirhus  tenues  et  incomprehenfi- 
biles,  infinuanr  fe  corporibus  hominum,  et  occuhe   in  vif- 

ceribus 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     27 

to  this  purpofe  -y  and  indeed  they  who  deny 
all  power  and  influence  of  angels  demons 
and  fpirits  over  the  bodies  and  fouls  of  men, 
contradict  the  general  belief  of  mankind  as 
well  as  the  whole  tenor  of  revelation.  If 
the  exiftence  of  fuch  beings  is  admitted, 
their  power  cannot  be  denied/  the  one  is  fo 
plain  a  confequence  from  the  other. 

But  though  poffibly  jthey  may  have  the 
power  of  doing  thefe  things,  yet  what  rea- 
fon  is  there  to  think,  or  how  doth  it  appear, 
that  they  ever  exercifed  it  ?  It  was,  I  fup- 
pofe,  the  great  difficulty  of  difcovering  the 
caufes  and  applying  the  remedies  to  certain 
difeafes,  which  induced  men  to  look  higher, 
and  to  regard  them  as  the  productions  of 
evil  fpirits.     They  were  for  referring  them 
to  fuch  caufes,  becaufe  they  were  incapable 
of  difcerning  other  caufes,  and  could  not  any 
other  ways  account  for  fuch  effects.     If  in- 
deed  things    can    be  fufliciently  explained 

ceribus  operati  valetudinem  variant,  morbos  citant,  fomniis 
animos  terrent  &c.     JLaftant.  Lib.  2.   Cap.  14. 

(5)  Vitam  turbant,  fomnos  inquietant,  irrepentes  etiam 
in  corporibus  occulte  rnentes  terrent,  membra  diftorquent, 
valetudinem  frangunt,  morbos  laceflunt.  Cypr.  de  JdoJ. 
Vanit.  p.  10.  Edit.  Felli.  Oxon. 

E  2  upon 


28      A   DISSERTATION 

upon  natural  principles,  we  fhould  not  have 
recourfe  to  fupernatural.  If  we  can  by 
any  means  unty  the  knot  ourfelves,  we  fhoukl 
not  bring  in  a  demon  to  cut  it.  But  are 
then  the  caufes  of  melancholy,  of  madnefs, 
of  epilepfy  and  the  like  fo  well  known  and 
underftood,  that  we  can  point  them  out  in 
each  particular  cafe,  and  mark  the  diftinftion 
between  them  ?  We  may  know  the  fymptoms 
the  concomitants  and  effcfts,  we  may  in 
fome  meafure  be  able  to  adminifter  reme- 
dies; bat  who  can  fully  explain  the  fpring 
and  fource  of  thefe  diitempers,  generally  in- 
curable by  all  the  fkill  and  art  of  man  ; 
what  it  is  that  produces  this  crafis  of  the 
blood  and  humors,  or  how  it  is  that  this 
crafis  of  the  blood  and  humors  excites  fuch 
horrid  convulfions  in  the  body,  fuch  ex- 
travagant fancies  in  the  mind  ?  Madnefs  in 
particular  feemeth  almoft  as  inexplicable  as 
dreaming.  In  a  former  diflertation  I  at- 
tempted to  fhow  the  extreme  difficulty,  if 
not  utter  impofiibility,  of  accounting  for 
the  phenomenon  of  dreaming,  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  mere  matter  and  motion,  without 
recurring  to  the  agency  of  fome  fpirit :  and 

may 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     29 

may  not  madnefs  be  confidered  as  waking 
dreams,  and  dreams  as  fleeping  madnefs  ? 
Very  little  indeed  it  is  that  we  can  difcover 
of  the  true  caufe  and  origin  of  things.     We 
know  that  fuch  and  fuch  things  are,  but  we 
know  not  how  they  are,  or  what  is  their 
real  eflence  and  conftitution.     Thofe  events 
which  we  call  natural  are  fuch  as  fall  out 
according  to  the  common  courfe  of  nature  -y 
but  we  are  as  little  able  to  account  for  the 
common  and  ordinary,  as  for  the  lingular 
and  extraordinary  productions  of  nature. 
(Ecclef.  XI.  5.)  "  As  thou  knoweft  not  what 
"  is  the  way  of  the  fpirit,    nor  how  the 
"  bones  do  grow  in  the  womb  of  her  that  is 
"  with  child,  even  fo  thou  knoweft  not  the 
"  works  of  God  who  maketh  all."     Since 
then  our  knowlege  is  fo  very  deficient,    and 
we  can  fo  feldom  fay  This  is  the  caufe,  we 
cannot  always   be  certain  'That  is   not  the 
caufe.     We  cannot  give  any  clear  and  ra- 
tional explication  of  the  malignitv  and  in- 
eurablenefs  of  certain  difeafes,  and  how  then 
can  we  be  confident  that  they  are  no  ways 
owing  to  the  operation  of  evil  fpirits  ?  May 
not  the  fame  efllci  proceed  from  different 

caufes ; 


A  DISSERTATION 

caufes ;  and  what  is  ufually  produced  in  the 
ordinary  courfe  of  nature,  may  it  not   be 
fometimes   effected  by  the  interpofition  of 
an  extraordinary  power  ?  Such  an  interpofi- 
tion indeed  we  fhould  not  admit  merely 
upon  iuppofition,  nor  becaufe  we  think  it 
pofiibie,  conclude  it  therefore  to  be  proba- 
ble.    We  fhould  have  fome  better  warrant 
and  authority,  and  what  better  warrant  and 
authority  can  we  defire  than  a  divine  revela- 
tion ?  Things  may  be  or  may  not  be  wrought 
by  evil  fpirits,   for  what  we  can  tell  -y  but 
furely  we  may  with  reafon  believe  them  to  be 
wrought  by  evil  fpirits,  when  they  appear  to 
be  fo  from  the  things  themfelves  tranfcend- 
ing  all  human  powers,  and  moreover  when 
they  are  affirmed  to  be  fo  by  exprefs   tefti- 
monies  of  holy  writ. 

Dr.  Mead,  who  was  for  attributing  as 
much  to  material,  and  as  little  to  fpiritual 
caufes,  as  a  lefs  reafonable  man  could  do, 
in  his  Medica  Sacra  thus  freely  delivers  his 
fentiments  on  this  head ;  (6)  "  I  am  not 
"  ignorant  that  the  Jews,  by  a  manner  of 
"  expreflion   familiar    among    them,    are 

(-6)  Medica  Sacra,  cap.  3.  in  Dr.  Stack's  tranflation. 

"  wont 


ok  the  DEMONIACS.     3t 

wont  to  afcribe  difeafes  of  this  kind  to 
the  power  of  evil  angels  as  minifters  of 
God;  and  that  even  at  this  day  fome 
very  learned  men  may  defend  the  fame 
notion.  But  for  my  part,  if  I  may  be 
allowed  to  declare  my  thoughts  with  free- 
dom, I  cannot  think  it  right  to  have  re- 
courfe  to  the  divine  wrath  for  difeafes, 
which  can  be  proved  to^  have  natural 
caufes;  unlefs  it  be  exprefly  declared, 
that  they  were  fent  down  directly  from 
heaven.  For  if  they  fall  on  us  in  punifli- 
ment  of  our  fins,  the  intention  of  the 
fupreme  lawgiver  would  be  fruiirated, 
unlefs  a  fure  rule  was  given,  whereby 
his  vengeance  might  be  diftinguifhed 
from  common  events ;  in  as  much  as  the 
innocent  may  be  equal  iharers  in  fuch 
calamities  with  the  guilty.  Moreover  it 
feems  reafonable  to  believe,  that  evils  in- 
flicted by  the  omnipotent  judge  muft  be 
either  incurable,  or  curable  by  himfelf 
alone ;  that  the  connection  of  his  power 
with  his  equity  may  the  more  brightly 
fhine  forth.  By  fuch  a  criterion  are  mi- 
raculous works  diftinguifhed  frorti  the 

"  operations 


32      A   DISSERTATION 

"  operations  of  nature."  And  is  not  this 
precisely  the  cafe  of  the  demoniacs  and  ethers 
in  the  icripture  ?  They  are  exprefly  declared 
to  have  been  actuated  and  afflicted  by  evil 
fpirits;  their  cafes  are  fufficiently  diftinguifh- 
ed  from  common  events,  and  were  either  in^ 
curable  or  curable  only  by  a  divine  power. 

IV.  Let  us  then  take  a  nearer  view  of 
the  demoniacs  inthegofpels,  and  fee  whether 
they  do  not  come  within  this  defcription. 
Thofe  who  maintain  that  thefe  poflefiions 
were  nothing  more  than  natural  difeafes, 
have  not  gained  any  honor  or  credit  by  the 
company  they  keep :  for  as  Dr.  Hutchinfon, 
the  learned  editor  of  fome  part  of  Xeno- 
phon's  works,  obferves  in  a  (7)  fermon 
upon  this  fubjeci,  <c  Pomponatius,  Vaninns, 
"  HobbSj  Spinoza,  and  Bekker  efpecially, 
"  have  all  patronifed  the  fame  opinion,"  all 
of  them  profane  and  atfreiftical  writers.  A 
very  different  man  is  produced  as  a  favorer 
likewife  of  this  opinion,  Mr.  Mede,  and 
Dr.  Mead  glories  (as  well  he  might)  in  his 

(7)  The  ufual  interpretation  of  ca^o^?  and  ta^ona  in 
the  New  Teftament  afierted  in  a  Sermon  before  the  univer- 
fity  of  Oxford,  p.  30.  1738. 

relation 


ontheDEMONIACS.     33 

relation  to  him,  one  of  the  moft  learned 

judicious  and  able  of  all  our  divines,  whofe 
fingle  authority  would  weigh  more  with  me 
than  that  of  many  other  others,  being 
among  the  firft  of  my  capital  and  favorite 
authors.  His  fixth  difcourfe  is  cited  for 
this  purpofe :  but  his  notions,  as  I  conceive, 
have  been  very  much  mifunderftood,  or 
very  much  mifreprefented.  For  though  he 
might  allow  demoniacs  to  be  the  fame  as 
madmen  and  lunatics,  yet  he  looked  upon 
this  madnefs  as  caufed  by  evil  fpirits  -y  and 
not  only  fo,  but  moreover  believed  that 
perfons  might  be  fo  pofiefled  and  a&uated 
at  this  time.  He  fays  (8)  indeed,  that 
"  thefe  demoniacs  were  no  other  than  fuch 
**  as  we  call  madmen  and  lunatics,  at  leaft 
<c  that  we  comprehend  them  under  thofe 
"  names,  and  that  therefore"  (obferve  what 
follows)  "  they  both  fiill  are,  and  in  all 
"  times,  and  places  have  been  much  more 
"  frequent  than  we  imagin."  Again  he 
fays,  "  Such  as  thefe,  I  fay,  the  Jews  be- 
"  lieved   (and  fo  may  we)  to   be  troubled 

(8)  Mede's  Works,  Difc.  VI.    p.   29  &  30.    and  636. 
Edit.  1672. 

F  "  with 


34     A   DISSERTATION 

'?  with  evil  fpirits,  as  it  is  faid  of  Saul's 
"  melancholy  that  an  evil  fpirit  from  the 
"  Lord  troubled  him?  He  fays  afterwards, 
<£  If  thofe  were  not  fuch  as  we  now  a-days 
"  conceive  of  no  otherwife  than  as  mad- 
c<  men,  furely  the  world  muft  be  fuppofed 
"  to  be  very  well  rid  of  devils  over  it  hatli 
"  been  5  'which  for  my  part  I  believe  nQt" 
And  in  another  part  of  his  works  he  aflerts 
the  word  demons,  in  the  gofpels  efpeci^ 
ally,  to  fignify  devils.  "  The  ufe  of  the 
^  word  demon  in  the  worft  fenfe,  or  direflly 
<c  for  a  devil,  will  be  almoft  confined  to  the 
"  gofpels,  where  the  fubjeft  fpoken  of  be- 
?c  ing  men  vexed  with  evil  fpirits  could  admit 
- c  no  other  fenfe  nor  ufeT  It  is  evident  then 
that  Mr.  Mede  was  fo  far  from  falling  fhort 
in  belief,  that  he  carried  it  farther  than  the 
generality  of  Chriftian  Divines  do.  But  I 
would  not  therefore  affirm  that  all  madmen 
are  demoniacs,  any  more  than  I  would,  that 
all  demoniacs  are  madmen.  The  fymp- 
toms  and  eftefts  of  melancholy,  of  mad- 
nefs,  of  epilepfy  and  the  like,  whether  in 
{he  natural  way  as  it  is  called,  or  by  demo- 
niacal pofleffion,  may  be  fo  much  alike,  fo 


on  the  DEMONIACS.    3^ 

much  the  fame,  that  we  may  not  be  able 
clearly  to  diftinguifh  and  point  out  which  is 
the  proper  caufe:  but  we  may  determin 
with  fome  kind  of  certainty,  when  the  pof- 
feflion  is  ftrongly  marked  by  fome  circum- 
ftances  more  than  natural,  and  the  truth 
and  reality  of  it  are  farther  confirmed  to  us 
by  the  mod  creditable  authors,  whom  we 
have  all  the  reafon  in  the  world  to  believe  to 
be  divinely  infpired. 

Of  Saul's  difeafe  we  fhould  not  have 
known  the  real  caufe,  if  the  facred  hiftorian 
had  not  informed  us  that  it  was  an  evil 
Jpirit,  and  that  in  fuch  a  manner  that  it 
cannot  be  miftaken.  For  when  Saul  was 
anointed  king  (iSam.  X.  9,  10.)  "  the 
"  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him,  and  gave 
"  him  another  heart."  But  when  by  his 
fins  he  had  forfeited  God's  favor,  it  is  faid 
( 1  Sam.  XVI.  14.)  that  "  the  Spirit  of  the 
"  Lord  departed  from  him,  and  an  evil 
"  fpirit  from  the  Lord  troubled  him."  We 
fee  the  one  is  plainly  oppofed  to  the  other ; 
the  one  is  a  name  or  quality  only  no  more 
than  the  other;  the  one  is  a  fiftitious  being  no 
more  than  the  other;  both  are  real  agents,  the 

F  2  evil 


36      A    DISSERTATION 

evil  fpirit  as  well  as  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord. 
But  it  is  afked,  What  connexion  is  there 
between  mufical  inftruments,  and  devils  or 
evil  fpirits?  How  can  founds  and  fym- 
phonies  have  the  power  of  removing  or 
chafing  away  an  evil  fpirit  ?  For  by  David's 
playing  upon  the  harp  (ver.  23.)  "  Saul 
"  was  refrefhed,  and  was  well,  and  the 
tc  evil  fpirit  departed  from  him."  But 
when  the  diftemper  is  much  the  fame, 
whether  occafioned  by  demoniacal  or  by  na- 
tural means,  why  may  not  mufic  have  the 
power  of  relieving  and  refrefhing  men  in 
the  one  cafe  as  well  as  in  the  other  ?  Why 
may  not  mufic  have  the  power  of  affe£ting 
a  fpirit  as  well  as  matter,  of  diverting  and 
changing  the  thoughts  of  the  mind  as  well 
as  the  humors  of  the  body  ?  It  Ihould  feem 
that  the  fpirit  muft  be  fii  ft  affe&ed ;  for  if 
the  mind  be  wholly  inattentive,  or  other- 
wife  engaged  and  employed,  the  moft  hea- 
venly mufic  is  as  nothing,  and  can  produce 
no  kind  of  effect:  upon  the  body. 

The  true  ftate  of  the  demoniacs  is  feen 
more  fully  in  the  gofpels.  Our  blefled  Sa- 
viour and  his  difciples  all  along  fpeak  of 

them 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     37 

them  as  perfons  really  pofiefled,  and  that  in 
fo  plain  a  manner  as  cannot  eafily  be  mis- 
taken. St.  Luke,  who  was  himfelf  a  phy- 
fician,  and  confequently  knew  how  to  dif- 
tinguifh  natural  difeafes  from  others,  maketh 
ufe  of  the  fame  language,  and  his  ftile  and 
manner  of  writing  are  much  commended 
by  the  moft  learned  of  the  fame  profeffion. 
(9)  Dr.  Mead  fays  of  him,  that  as  a  phy- 
fician  he  well  underftood  the  force  and 
meaning  of  words  -,  and  Dr.  Freind  for 
the  fame  reafon  obferves  that  "  his  lan- 
"  guage  is  more  fimple,  and  more  cor- 
<c  reft,  as  well  as  more  phyfical,"  than 
that  of  the  other  evangelifts :  And  yet  he  is 
as  full  and  copious,  as  exaft  and  particular 
in  his  account  of  the  demoniacs,  as  any  of 
them.  It  is  true  indeed,  when  an  inveterate 
difeafe  is  cured  inftantly  by  a  word's  fpeak- 
ing,  the  cure  muft  certainly  be  miraculous, 
and  owing  to  the  interpofition  of  a  divine 
power,  whatever  may  have  been  the  caufe 
of  the  difeafe,  whether  it  arofe  from  natural 

(6)  Mead.  Medic  Sacr.  Cap.  15.  p.  107.     Freind's  Hid. 
of  Phytic,  Vol.  I.  p.  224. 

means, 


38     A   DISSERTATION 

means,  or  proceeded  from  the  influence  of 
evil  fpirits  :  but  of  the  two  it  fhould  feem  a 
more  difficult  and  arduous  province,  more 
great  and  godlike  to  difpoffefs  evil  fpirits, 
than  to  cure  common  difeafes.  A  diftinftion 
too  is  made  between  the  curing  of  difeafes  and 
the  cajiing  out  of  devilsy  as  if  they  were  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  operations,  and  the  one 
much  harder  to  be  performed  than  the  other. 
In  St.  Matthew's  gofpel  we  read,  (VIII.  16.) 
that  "  when  the  even  was  come,  they 
"  brought  unto  him  many  that  were  poffelT- 
"  ed  with  devils  j  and  he  caft  out  the  fpirits 
"  with  his  word,  and  healed  all  that  were 
<c  fick."  In  the  parallel  place  of  St.  Mark 
we  read,  (I.  32,  34.)  that  "  at  even,  when 
the  fun  did  fet,  they  brought  unto  him 
all  that  were  difeafed,  and  them  that  were 
poffefled  with  devils ;  and  he  healed  many 
IC  that  were  fick  of  divers  difeafes,  and  caft 
"  out  many  devils."  Here  is  as  manifeft  a 
diftin£tion  made  between  healing  and  cajiing 
cut  as  between  difeafes  and  devils :  but  the 
diftinftion  is  marked  ftill  more  ftrongly  in 
the  parallel  place  of  St.  Luke,  (IV.  40,  41.) 
11  Now  when  the  fun  was  fetting,  all  they 

"  that 


i.C 


it 


tt 

a 

C( 

cc 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     39 

V  that  had  any  fick  with  divers  difeafes, 
brought  them  unto  him  3  and  he  laid  his 
hands  on  every  one  of  them,  and  healed 
them  -,  And  devils  alfo  came  out  of  many, 
crying  out  and  faying,  Thou  art  Chrift 
the  Son  of  God."  Would  any  phyfician 
or  correal  writer  have  expreffed  himfelf  after* 
this  manner,  if  nothing  more  had  been  in*., 
tended  than  the  healing  of  common  difeafes  ? 
Common  difeafes,  fuch  as  the  leprofy  and 
palfy  and  the  like,  are  faid  to  be  cleanfed 
and  healed^  but  are  never  faid  to  be  cqft  out> 
and  to  come  out  crying  and  faying  any  thing. 
When  our  Saviour  had  called  unto  him  his 
twelve  difciples,  (Matt.  X.  j,  8.)  "  he  gave 
"  unto  them  power  againft  unclean  fpirits 
"  to  caft  them  out,  and  to  heal  all  manner 
"  of  ficknefs  and  all  manner  of  difeafes :" 
and  among  his  other  direftions  he  gave  them 
the  following,  "  Heal  the  fick,  cleanfe  the 
"  lepers,  raife  the  dead,  caft  out  devils." 
"  He  ordained  twelve,"  faith  St.  Mark  (III. 
14,  15.)  "  that  they  fhould  be  with  him, 
"  and  that  he  might  fend  them  forth  to 
"  preach,  and  to  have  power  to  heal  fick- 
M  neifes,  and  to  caft  out  devils  :"  and  it  is 

faid 


4o     A  DISSERTATION 

faid afterwards  (VI.  13.)  that  "  they  caft  out 
"  many  devils,  and  anointed  with  oil  many 
"  that  were  fick,  and  healed  them."  When 
our  Saviour  had  fent  forth  his  feventy  dif- 
ciples  to  heal  the  fick,  and  to  preach  the 
kingdom  of  God,  (Luke  X.  17.)  "  they 
"  returned  again  with  joy,  faying,  Lord, 
"  even  the  devils  arefubjedt  unto  us  through 
"  thy  name  jN  as  if  this  was  the  higheft  in- 
ftance  of  power,  and  far  beyond  what  they 
could  have  expeiled.  In  his  laft  commiffion 
to  his  difciples  our  Saviour  ftill  preferves  the 
fame  diftinftion,  (Mark XVI.  17,  18.)  "  In 
"  my  name  (hall  they  caft  out  devils, — they 
"  fhall  lay  hands  on  the  fick,  and  they  fhall 
"  recover." 

But  it  is  pretended,  that  in  this  manner 
of  fpeaking  our  Saviour  complied  only  with 
the  cuftomary  language  of  his  country,  it 
being  no  part  of  his  commiffion,  nor  the 
defign  of  the  facred  writers,  to  correft  mis- 
takes in  phyfic,  any  more  than  in  aftronomy 
or  any  other  fcience.  But  the  cafes  are  vaftly 
different.  This  or  that  fyftem  of  aftronomy, 
whether  true  or  falfe,  whether  the  Coperni- 
can  or  Ptolemaic  or  any  other,  hath  no  kind 

of 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     41 

of  influence  upon  Chriftian  faith  an^i  pra6tice. 
Whether  the  fun  or  earth  be  at  reft,  it  maketh 
no  difference  to  us,  we  have  ftill  the  fame  race 
to  run,  the  fame  goal  to  reach,  and  the  fame 
prize  fet  before  us  of  the  high  calling  of  God 
in  Chrift  Jefus.  But  miliaken  notions  of 
demons  or  devils  may  much  affe£t  our  reli- 
gious and  moral  character,  may  fill  our 
minds  with  vain  terrors  and  fuperftitions, 
debafe  and  corrupt  our  morals  as  well  as 
our  understandings,  and  prove  the  fource 
of  infinite  calamity  and  mifery  here  and 
hereafter.  A  more  plaufible  argument  may 
be  drawn  from  the  ftoryof  the  blind  man  in 
St.  John's  gofpel,  (IX.  1,2,  3.)  "  As  Jefus 
pafTed  by,  he.  faw  a  man,  which  was 
blind  from  his  birth  :  And  his  difciples 
aiked  him  faying,  Mafter,  who  did  fin, 
"  this  man  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born 
"  blind  ?  Jefus  anfvvered,  Neither  hath  this 
u  man  finned,  nor  his  parents  ;  but  that 
"  the  works  of  God  fhould  be  made  mani- 
11  feft  in  him."  We  fee,  the  difciples  had 
a  notion,  as  many  of  the  Jews  then  had, 
of  a  ftate  of  exiftence  prior  to  this  life  \ 
and  our  Saviour  feemeth  to  allow  it,  $t  leaft 

G  doth 


4?      A   DISSERTATION 

doth  not  refute  and  reclify  it  :  but  as  we 
Jiave  no  remembrance,  no  confcioufnefs  of 
pur  former  exiftence,  it  is  all  one  to  us 
whether  there  be  fuch  a  ftate  or  not  -,  it  is  a 
matter  merely  of  (peculation,  and  no  way 
relates  to  practice :  and  fome  ingenious 
Chriftian  divines  as  well  as  fome  learned 
Heathen  philofophers  have  entertained  the 
fame  opinion,  I  will  not  fay  truly,  but  yet 
very  innocently,  and  without  any  prejudice 
to  religion.  Whereas  we  can  neither  with 
innocence  nor  with  fafety  attribute  powers 
to  devils  which  they  have  not,  nor  take  iron} 
them  what  they  really  have  :  and  it  is  not 
eafy  to  fay  which  of  the  two  may  expofe  us 
to  greater  evils  and  dangers.  ( i  John  III.  8.) 
"  For  this  purpofe  the  Son  of  God  was 
"  manifefted,  that  he  might  deftroy  the 
<£  works  of  the  devil :"  but  it  is  inlarging 
and  adding  to  the  works  of  the  devil,  if  he 
never  had  fuch  a  power,  to  afcribe  to  him 
the  power  of  influencing  and  pofleffing  the 
fouls  and  bodies  of  men.  Next  in  power 
and  goodnefs  to  the  cafting  of  real  devils 
out  of  the  bodies,  would  have  been  the. 
deftroying  and  rooting  of  this  falfe   notion 

out 


od  the  DEMONIAC  S.    43 

out  of  the  minds  of  meti.  If  it  had  beeri 
impofiible  to  overcome  the  prejudices  of  the 
people,  yet  our  Saviour  might,  either  by 
himfelf  or  by  the  Holy  Ghoft  afterwards, 
have  difclofed  the  truth  to  his  difciples. 
His  goodnefs  would  hardly  have  fuffered 
them  to  remain  in  fo  pernicious  an  error. 

But  our  Saviour  was  fo  far  frorri  reprov- 
ing or  correcting  this  notion,  that  he  hath 
confirmed  and  eftabliflied  it  beyond  all  rea- 
fonable  contradiction.  He  was  fo  far  from 
giving  other  inftru6tibris  to  his  difciples; 
that  he  hath  faid  and  done  more  than 
enough  to  convince  them  of  the  reality  of 
thefe  pofleffions.  When  he  had  called  his 
twelve  difciples,  (Matt.  X.  i.)  "  he  gave 
"  them  power  againft  unclean  fpirits  tQ 
"  caft  them  out,"  and  he  gave  it  befides  in. 
commiffion  to  them  (ver.  8.)  "  to  caft  out 
"  dev'tls :"  and  would  he  have  given  fuch  a 
power  and  fuch  a  commiffion,  if  there  had 
been  no  devils  to  caft  out,  and  the  wtiole 
had  been  a  vain  imagination  ?  When  he  had 
lent  forth  the  feventy  difciples,  and  they 
(Luke  X.  17.)  "  returned  again  with  joy, 
u  faying,  Lord  even  the  devils  are  fubjecl 

G  2  "  unic* 


44      A    DISSERTATION 

"  unto  us  through  thy  name/*  he  was  fo 
far  from  repreffing  their  joy,  that  he  rather 
encouraged  it,  and  fixed  it  upon  its  proper 
foundation,  (ver.  18,  19,  20.)  "  I  beheld 
ce  Satan  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven.  Be- 
*c  hold,  I  give  unto  you  power  to  tread  on 
ferpents  and  fcorpions,  and  over  all  the 
power  of  the  enemy ;  and  nothing  fhall 
by  any  means  hurt  you.  Notwithftand- 
ing  in  this  rejoice  not,  that  the  fpirits  are 
fubjeft  unto  you  ,  but  rather  rejoice,  be- 
caufe  your  names  are  written  in  heaven." 
But  what  is  the  fenfe  or  meaning  of  all  this 
phrafeology,  if  nothing  more  was  perform- 
ed than  fome  cures  of  epilepfy  and  madnefs  ? 
How  can  the  healing  of  the  falling  licknefs 
be  faid  to  be  the  fall  of  Satan  from  his 
power  and  dominion  ?  How  can  the  curing 
of  bodily  difeafes  be  faid  to  be  the  fubjeclion 
of  the  jpirits.%  and  a  victory  and  triumph 
over  all  the  power  of  the  enemy  ?  Our  Saviour 
often  commands  the  unclean  fpirits  to  come 
out  of  a  man :  "  Hold  thy  peace,  (Luke 
IV.  35.)  cc  and  come  out  of  him:"  but 
where  is  the  reafon  or  propriety  of  this 
command*  if  there  were  no  fpirits  to  come 

out, 


otfTiiE  DEMONIACS.     45 

Out,  and  only  fome  diftemper  to  be  cured  ? 
When  the  Jews  charged  our  Saviour  "  with 
"  having  a  devil,"  (John  VIII.  48.)  he  de- 
nies the  charge  indeed,  and  difproves  it : 
but  upon  this  fuppofition  the  fhorter  and 
better  anfwer  would  have  been,  that  there 
was  no  fuch  pofleffion,  there  was  no  fuch 
thing  as  having  a  devil.  In  like  manner, 
when  the  pharifees  accufed  him  (Matt.  XIL 
24.)  of  "  cafting  out  devils  by  the  prince  of 
<c  the  devils  j,"  the  proper  reply  would  have 
been  to  have  denied  the  principle  inftead  of 
refuting  it,  and  direftly  to  have  told  the 
truth,  if  it  had  been  the  truth,  that  the 
devil  was  not  in  the  leaft  concerned  one  way 
or  other :  but  he  admits  the  truth  of  his 
cafting  out  devils,  and  only  expofes  the  un- 
reafonablenefs  and  abfurdity  of  imputing  it 
to  the  prince  of  the  devils.  And  would  he 
have  employed  fo  many  arguments  upon  a 
fubjedl  that  had  not  the  leaft  foundation  in 
truth  or  the  nature  of  things  ?  Would  he 
have  attempted  to  prove  the  truth  of  his  di- 
vine million  from  a  falfe  chimsera,  from  a 
thing  that  was  not  ?  Would  he  have  argued 
upon  the  reality  of  his  cafting  out  devils,  if 

it 


46     A  DISSERTATION 

it  had  been  only  a  vulgar  notion,  an  idle 
dream,  a  wild  fancy,  and  no  reality  in  it  { 
or  have  pretended,  that  he  "  caft  out  devils 
"  by  the  Spirit  of  God,"  and  that  there- 
fore "  the  kingdom  of  God  was  come  ?" 
The  devil  that  was  caft  out  might  have  rea- 
foned  in  this  manner  ->  but  not  He,  who  is 
emphatically  ftiled  (John  XIV.  6.)  "the 
"  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life." 

Befides,  if  the  demoniacs  were  mere  mad- 
men and  lunatics,  how  came  they  to  be  fo 
much  better  and  fo  much  earlier  acquaint- 
ed with  our  Lord's  true  character  and  office, 
than  the  generality  of  the  people,  or  evert 
the  difciples  themfelves  ?  His  fame  indeed 
went  abroad,  but  his  real  ftate  and  condi- 
tion were  little  known  and  underftood, 
while  we  find  the  demoniacs  publicly  pro- 
claiming him  to  be  "  the  Chrift,  the  Holy 
"  One  of  God,  the  Son  of  the  moft  High 
<c  God."  He  had  but  newly  entered  on 
his  miniftry,  when  according  to  St.  Mark 
(I.  23,  24.)  "  there  was  in  the  fynagogue 
"  a  man  with  an  unclean  fpirit;  and  he 
"  cried  out,  faying,  Let  us  alone;  what 
f(  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou  Jefus  of 

"  Nazareth  > 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     47 

<£  Nazareth  ?  art  thou  come  to  deftroy  us  ? 
"  I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy 
"  One  of  God  :"  and  according  to  St.  Luke 
(IV.  41.)  "  devils  alfo  came  out  of  many, 
"  crying  out  and  faying,  Thou  art  Chrift, 
"  the  Son  of  God."  It  was  fome  time 
after  this  that  our  Saviour  afked  his  difci- 
ples,  (Matt.  XVI.  13,  14.)  "  Whom  do 
"  men  fay  that  I,  the  fon  of  man,  am  ? 
"  And  they  faid,  Some  fay  that  thou  art 
"  John  the  baptifl ;  fome,  Elias;  and 
"  others,  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets." 
We  fee,  that  they  regarded  him  as  no  more 
than  a  prophet ;  they  did  not  generally  con- 
ceive him  to  be  the  Meffiah ;  the  demoniacs 
had  fuller  and  jufter  notions  of  the  facred- 
nefs  of  his  perfon,  and  of  the  dignity  of  his 
charafter.  Afterwards,  when  he  aiked  his 
difciples  (ver.  15,  16,  17.)  "  But  whom  fay 
"  ye  that  I  am  ?  Simon  Peter  anfwered  and 
<c  faid,  Thou  art  the  Chrift,  the  Son  of  the 
"  living  God.  And  Jefus  anfwered  and 
<g  faid  unto  him,  Bleffed  art  thou,  Simon 
Bar-jona ;  for  flefh  ^nd  blood  hath  not 
revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,"     It  was   impoffible 

therefore 


A  DISSERTATION 

therefore  for  mere  madmen  to  have  attained 
to  this  extraordinary  degree  of  knowlege, 
but  the  difcovery  might  eafily  have  been 
made  by  beings  of  fo  much  fuperior  capaci- 
ties and  intellefts  as  the  fallen  angels.  If 
the  thing  had  been  generally  known,  it  would 
have  been  to  little  purpofe  for  our  Lord  to 
have  charged  the  demoniacs  to  tc  hold  their 
"  peace :"  but  he  impofed  filence  upon 
them,  for  the  fame  reafon  that  he  injoined 
fecrecy  to  his  difciples,  left  the  publication 
of  the  truth  fhould  provoke  the  rage  and 
malice  of  his  enemies  to  put  a  period  to 
his  life,  before  his  hour  was  come,  before 
he  had  finifhed  the  due  courfe  of  his  mini- 
ftry.  The  difciples  might  have  publifhed 
it  with  a  good  defign  for  the  glory  of  their 
matter,  but  the  devils  would  moft  proba- 
bly have  publifhed  it  malicioufly,  and  with 
intent  to  haften  on  his  deftruftion. 

In  this  controverfy  we  find  two  cafes  of 
madnefs  and  epilepfy  particularly  infifted 
on,  in  order  to  prove  that  thefe  pofleflions 
were  ufually  the  one  or  the  other  :  and  it  is 
not  denied,  that  there  are  demoniacs  who 
may  labor  under  epilepfy  and  madnefs  ^  but 

then  ^ 


bi*  the  DEMONIACS.     4$ 

then,  I  fay,  they  are  not  mere  epilepfy  and 
madnefs;  they  are  fomething  more  than 
natural  difeafesj  there  are  effe<5ls  which 
plainly  point  out  and  refer  to  fome  fuperior 
caufe>  as  we  fhall  be  more  fully  convinced 
by  taking  the  two  cafes  into  confideration. 

While  our  Saviour  was  with  Peter,  James 
and  John  upon  the  mountain  which  was 
the  fcene  of  his  transfiguration,  a  certain 
man  brought  his  young  fon  to  the  difciples 
that  they  fhould  cure  him,  and  they  could 
not.  His  cafe  by  the  defcription  of  it  was 
plainly  epileptic,  but  it  was  fomething  more 
than  a  common  epilepfy,  as  is  evident  from 
feveral  circumftances.  All  the  three  evan- 
gelifts  (Matt.  XVII.  Mark  IX.  Luke  IX.) 
exprefly  afcribe  it  to  "  a  devil,  an  unclean 
"  fpirit,  a  dumb  and  deaf  fpirit  y  and  a  dif- 
tinftion  is  made  between  the  a£Hons  of  the 
fpirit  as  the  agent,  and  of  the  demoniac  as  the 
patient.  In  St.  Mark's  account  (ver.  18.) 
"  wherefoever  he  (the  fpirit)  takethhim,  he 
<c  teareth  him  3  and  he  (the  demoniac) 
"  foameth,  and  gnafheth  with  his  teeth,  and 
"  pineth  away."  St.  Luke  diftinguifheth  in 
like  manner  (ver.  39.)  '•  Andlo,  afpirittaketh 

H  "  him* 


5o      A   DISSERTATION 

"  him,  and  he  fuddenly  crieth  out ;  and  it 
cc  teareth  him  that  he  foameth  again,  and 
"  bruifinghim,  hardly  departeth  from  him." 
He  had  long  labored  under  this  difeafe,  for 
it  had  grown  up  with  him  from  his  child- 
hood :  and  in  fuch  cafes  the  phyficians 
agree,  that  it  is  very  difficult,  if  not  im- 
poffible  to  be  cured.  Yet  Jefus  wrought 
the  cure;  and  the  miraculoufnefs  of  the 
cure  may  obtain  the  greater  credit  to  the 
miraculoufnefs  of  the  means,  by  which  the 
cure  was  wrought.  cc  Jefus  rebuked  the 
cc  devil,"  faith  St.  Matthew,  (ver.  18.) 
<c  and  he  departed  out  of  him,  and  the 
<c  child  was  cured  from  that  very  hour." 
Here  are  two  diftinft  events,  which  are  not 
to  be  confounded  together,  the  difpoflefiing 
of  the  evil  fpirit,  and  the  cure  of  the  young 
man  in  confequence  of  it.  St.  Mark  alfo 
reprefents  Jefus  (ver-  25.)  as  cc  rebuking 
"  the  foul  fpirit,  and  faying  unto  him, 
cc  Thou  dumb  and  deaf  fpirit,  I  charge 
"  thee,  come  out  of  him,  and  enter  no 
Cf  more  into  him."  A  falfe  and  fallacious 
manner  of  expreffion,  and  altogether  un- 
worthy of  our  Lord,  if  there  were  really  no 

fpirit 


ontheDEMONIACS.     51 

fpirit  to  come  out  or  enter  in  again,  and 
only  a  bodily  difeafe  to  be  cured.  The  cure 
too  is  altogether  unlike  the  cure  of  a  natural 
difeafe.  (ver,  26,  27.)  ."  And  the  fpirit 
cried,  and  rent  him  fore,  and  came  out 
of  him  y  and  he  was  as  one  dead,  info- 
much  that  many  laid,  He  is  dead.  But 
Jefus  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  lifted 
him  up ;  and  he  arofe."  A  natural  dif- 
eafe doth  not  leave  a  patient  with  fuch  fud~ 
den  force  and  violence ,  but  an  evil  fpirit 
might  give  as  it  were  a  parting  blow,  the 
laft  effort  of  his  malignity.  "  And  they 
"  were  all  amazed,"  faith  St.  Luke,  (ver. 
43.)  "  at  the  mighty  power  of  God  :"  but 
the  power  of  God  appears  much  mightier 
in  the  difpoffeffing  of  an  evil  fpirit  and  the 
curing  of  an  epilepfy  at  the  fame  time,  than 
in  the  curing  of  an  epilepfy  alone.  When 
the  difciples  afterwards  afked  our  Lord  in 
private,  (Matt.  XVII.  19,  20,21.)  "  Why 
*f  could  not  we  caft  him  out  ?"  He  replied, 
i£  Becaufe  of  your  unbelief;"  if  ye  had 
faith,  ye  fhould  remove  mountains,  and  no- 
thing fhould  be  impoffible  unto  you.  £{  How- 
cc  beit  this  kind  goeth  not  out  but  by  prayer 

H  2  "  and 


52      A    DISSERTATION 

"  and  fafting."  The  phyfician  who  pro- 
pofed  (i)  inftead  of  sv  wpoa-ev^Yi  kcci  vvjg-eia-  by 
prayer  and  fajiing  to  read  sv  73-poosx^  W6"? 

by  conjlant  fajiing^  piopofed  it  only  as  the 

■ 

play  of  a  fportive  fancy5  was  not  in  earnefl, 
and  could  not   really  approve  it   himfelf. 
For  conflant  falling  never  yet  cured  any 
one,  nor  ever  can  of  an  inveterate  epilepfy ; 
it  will  fooner  put  an  end  to  the  man,  than 
to  his  diflemper.     Prayer  and  fajiing  are 
often  joined  together  in  fcripture,  as  mu- 
tual helps,  and   requifites  in  any  arduous 
undertaking,    falling  making  prayer  more 
pure  and  intenfe  more  fervent  and  effeclual; 
and   without  doubt   they  are   the   proper 
means  to  flrengthen  and  increafe  our  faith, 
and  abfolutely  neceffary  to  procure  any  mi- 
raculous  gifts   and   graces.     Our   Saviour 
promifeth  his  difciples   in    another  place, 
(Matt.  XXI.  21,  22.)    "  If  ye  have  faith 
sc  and  doubt  not,    ye  fhall  fay  unto  this 
Ci  mountain,  Be  thou  removed,  and  be  thou 
■(  call  into  the  fea,  it  fhall  be  done :  And 

J1  all  things  whatibever  ye  (hall  afk  in  prayer, 

i 

(i)  Dr.  Sykes's  Inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  Demoniacs, 
j>.  47. 

cc  believing. 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     53 

c^  believing,  ye  fhall  receive."  St.  James 
mentions  it,  as  one  of  the  miraculous  gifts 
in  his  time,  and  as  an  encouragement  to 
pray  over  the  fick,  (V.  15.)  "  that  the 
?f  prayer  of  faith  fhall  fave  the  fick,  and  the 
"  Lord  fhall  raife  him  up."  Thefe  then  are 
the  conditions  without  which  no  miraculous 
powers  were  obtained,  and  much  more  were 
they  neceflary  to  the  performance  of  fuch  an 
extraordinary  miracle  as  this. 

The  cafe  of  the  madman  or  madmen  is 
ftill  ftronger,  and  more  inexplicable  upon 
the  principles  of  mere  difeafe,  mere  mad- 
nefs.  According  to  St.  Matthew  (VIII.  28.) 
there  were  two  of  them  5  Mark  (V.  2.)  and 
Luke  (VIII.  27.)  mention  only  one,  one 
being  perhaps  more  frantic  and  outrageous 
than  the  other  ;  but  this  difference  maketh 
little  difference  in  the  cafe.  It  is  faid  of  him 
(Mark,  ver.  3,  4.)  that  "  he  had  his  dwell- 
ing among  the  tombs,  and  no  man  could 
bind  him,  no  not  with  chains :  Becaufe 
that  he  had  been  often  bound  with  fetters 
and  chains,  and  the  chains  had  been 
plucked  afunder  by  him,  and  the  fetters 
broken  in  pieces 5  neither  could  any  man 


<c 


tame 


54     A   DISSERTATION 

"  tame  him."  Here  was  manifeftly  an  ex* 
ertion  of  ftrength  far  above  all  the  natural 
powers  of  man.  His  plucking  afunder  and 
breaking  in  pieces  the  fetters  and  chains  was 
fomething  very  extraordinary  -,  but  if  he  had 
done  it  once,  they  might  have  fecured  hirm 
with  ftronger  chains  j  but  he  did  it  often  \ 
neither  could  any  man  tame  him.  He  muft  be 
more  than  a  mere  madman,  who  was  fo 
wholly  unconquerable;  efpecially  if  (2)  Dr. 
Mead's  obfervation  be  true,  that  "  there  is 
the  lefs  neceflity  for  torments  and  ftripes, 
becaufe  all  madmen  are  of  fuch  a  cowardly 
difpofition  ;  that  even  the  molt  frantic 
and  mifchievous,  after  being  once  or  twice 
tied,  furrender  at  difcretion,  and  thence 
forward  refrain  from  committing  any 
outrage  through  fear  of  punifhment." 
"  When  he  faw  Jefus  afar  off,"  (Mark, 
ver.  6.)  "  he  ran  and  wor (hipped  him." 
But  how  came  a  madman,  who  had  been 
of  a  long  ti?ne  in  that  condition,  who  ware 
no  clothes,  neither  abode  in  any  boufe,  but  al- 
ways 

(?)  Mend.  Merllc.  Sacr.  Torments  vero  et  plague  ideo 
minus  Tunt  neceir.ria,  quod  animi  tam  pufilli,  et  imbelJes 
fur.t  omnes  infani  ;  ut  etiam  acerrime  fyrentes,  femcl  aut 
iterum  vin&i,  quafi  vi&i  fe  cltdaat,  et  in  poiterum  meticu- 

Jofi 


on  the  D  E1VIONI  ACS.     sS 

ways  night  and  day  was  in  the  mountains  and 
in  the  tombs,  and  was  exceeding  farce,  fo  that 
no  man  might  pafs  by  that  way  -,  how  came 
fuch  a  man  in  fuch  a  fituation  and  condi- 
tion to  have  any  knowlege  of  the  perfon 
and  chara&er  of  Jefus,  who  had  but  lately 
entered  upon  his  miniftry;  and  from  fo 
ferocious  creature  become  all  of  a  fudden 
fo  gentle  and  tradable  as  to  fall  down  and 
worfhip  him  ?  Upon  Jefus  commanding  the 
unclean  fpirit  to  come  out  of  the  man,  the 
man,  or  rather  the  demon  fpeaking  through 
the  man, — for  according  to  (3)  Plato,  the 
demoniacs  do  not  fpeak  their  own  language 
or  dialeft,  but  that  of  the  demon  who  has 

entered   into  them cried  out,    (ver.   6.) 

What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jefus,  thou 
Son  of  the  moft  High  God  ?  I  adjure 
thee  by  God  that  thou  torment  me  not :" 
or  as  St.  Matthew  expreffeth  it,  (ver.  29.) 
cc  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jefus,  thou 
"  Son  of  God  ?  art  thou  come  hither  to 


lofi  ab  injuriis  inferendis  defiflant.     Cap.  9.  p.  80.  with 
Stack's  tranflation. 

(3)  Plato  apud  Clem.  Alex,   w  uvluu  cv  (pfoyywlzt  <pmr,* 
act  oixkntiov,  aKha.  tijv  rut  vTrzwotlut  $ocl(aow».      Strom.  I.  p.  338. 

Edit,  Par,  p.  405.  Edit.  Potter, 

it  torment 


56     A   DISSIPATION 

"  torment  us  before  the  time  ?"  And  (Luke*; 
ver.  30.)  c<  theybefought  him  that  he  would 
"  nbt  command  them  to  go  but  into   the 
"  deep/'  the  abyfs  or  bottomlefs  pit.   Thefe 
fayings  might  be  dictated  by  evil  fpirits,  but 
other  wife  could  not  proceed  out  of  the  mouth 
of  madmen.  Spoken  of  the  former,  they  are 
very  intelligible,  having  plainly  fome  refe- 
rence to  their  future  ftate  and  punifhnient : 
but  they  are  in  no  fhape  applicable  to  the 
latter,  and  neither  could  fuch  things,  which 
were  then  but  little  known,  enter  into  the 
ideas  of  madmen,  who  generally  in  their 
wildeft  flights  have  yet  fome  fenfe  and  mean- 
ing.    It  farther  appears  that  feveral   evil 
fpirits  had  taken   pofleffion  of  this   man. 
For  St.  Luke  introduceth  the  ftory  by  fay- 
ing, (ver.  27.)  he  "  had  devils  long  time  {* 
and  upon   his  being  alked  What  was  his" 
name,  he  anfwered  "  Legion,  for  we  are 
"  many,"    as  it  is  in  St.  Mark  3  or  as  it  is 
in  St.  Luke,    (ver.  30.)    <c  becaufe  many 
tc  devilswere  entered  into  him,"  which  reafon 
is  afligned  not  by  the  man,  but  by  the  evan- 
gelift.     A  certain  number  is  put  for  an  un- 
certain, as  when  it  is  faid  (Luke  VIII.  2.) 

that 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     57 

that  out  of  Mary  Magdalen,  "  went  feven 
<c  devils/'  and  (Matt.  XII.  45.)  the  unclean 
fpirit  "  taketh  with  him  feven  other  fpirits" 
more  wicked  than  himfelf.  It  is  certain 
then,  that  a  man  may  be  pollened  by  a 
number  of  demons ;  and  the  Heathens  alfo 
had  fomething  of  the  fame  notion,  for  we 
find  the  phrafe  of  (4)  lar varum  plena ,  full 
of  larvce>  full  of  fpectres  or  goblins :  but 
whoever  heard  of  many  madneffes,  of  feven 
madneffes,  or  a  legion  of  madneffes  ?  It  is 
natural  for  evil  fpirits  to  delight  in  mifchief, 
and  accordingly  they  "  befoughtjefusmuch'* 
(Mark,  ver.  10.)  "  that  he  would  not  fend 
Cf  them  away  out  of  the  country/'  but  that  he 
would  give  them  leave  to  pafs  into  a  herd  oi 
fwine  that  was  feeding  nigh  unto  the  moun- 
tains. For  good  reafons  without  doubt 
(fome  of  which  we  may  difcern)  he  per- 
mitted them ;  and  they  went  out  of  the  man, 
and  entered  into  the  fwine,  and  the  whole 
herd,  to  the  number  of  "  about  two  thou- 
<c  fand,  ran  voilently  down  a  fleep  place 
"  into  the  fea,  and  perifhed  in  the  waters." 

(4)   Nam  hjecq  lidem  aedipol  larvamm plena  ejl.     Plaut. 
Amphit.  A6t.  2.  Sc.  2.  ver.  145. 

I  Thefe 


58     A   DISSERTATION 

Thefe  things  were  a  full  demonftration  of 
the  great  power  as  well  as  malice  of  thefe 
wicked  fpirits :  but  if  there  was  nothing 
more  than  madnefs  in  the  cafe,  how  could 
perfonal  actions  and  fpeeches  be  attributed 
to  it  ?  how  could  Jefus  hold  difcourfe  with 
a  mere  frenzy  ?  how  could  a  difeafe  wifli 
to  ftay  in  the  country,  and  do  farther  mif- 
chief  ?  anfwer  queftions,  make  ufe  of  in- 
treaties,  leave  the  body  wherein  it  was  and 
yet  have  a  diftinft  being,  enter  into  the 
whole  herd  of  fwine,  and  force  animals, 
which  are  the  moft  difficult  to  be  driven, 
down  a  fteep  place  into  the  fea.  If  thefe 
were  the  fayings  and  actions  of  devils,  the 
whole  narration  is  rational  and  confiftent  ^ 
but  underftood  of  a  frenzy  only,  the  ftory 
is  falfe  and  frivolous:  no  fenfible  writers, 
and  much  lefs  could  infpired  writers  have 
written  in  this  manner  $  and  Woolfton  him- 
felf  could  hardly  have  expofed  the  facred 
text  to  ftronger  ridicule. 

If  the  queftion  fhould  be  afked,  How  it 
came  to  pafs,  that  thefe  demoniacal  cafes 
abounded  fo  much  more  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Chriftian  sera,  than  at   any 

other 


on  the  D  E  M  O  N  I  A  C  S.     5.9 

other  period   before  or    fince^  it  may  be 
fairly  anfwered,  that  if  thefe  cafes  had  been 
peculiar   to  the  time  of  our   Saviour,  yet 
that  would  have  been  no   good  argument 
againft  the  truth  of  the   facls.     For  there 
are   certain    diftempers,   which  have   been 
epidemic  in  one  age,  and  yet  unknown  in 
any  other.     The  fweating  (5)  ficknefs,  for 
example,  was   never  heard  of   before  the 
fifteenth  century  in  any  age  or  nation ;  and 
after  returning  now  and  then,  for  the  fpace 
of  fome  years,  has  ever  fince  entirely  dif- 
appeared,  and   poffibly  may  never  return 
any  more.    But  we  read  of  fome  demoniacs, 
among  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  among  the 
Jews,    before  our   Saviour's   time,  and  of 
many   more   afterwards;    and  if  we  hear 
more  of  them  at  that  time  particularly,  the 
reafon  may   be,  becaufe  the  exiftence  and 
operations  of  evil  fpirits  began  then  to  be 
better   known  and  underftood  3  they  were 
then  living  who  had  the  gift  of  difcerning  of 
fpirits  -,  they  were  indued  with  fuch  powers,  f 
as  ferved  to  difcover  and  expofe  the  malig- 

(5)  See  Freind'sHift.of  Phyfic,  Vol.  II.  p.  332, 

I  2  nity 


6o     A   DISSERTATION 

nity  of  thefe  wicked  beings  -y  they  who  could 
adminifter  the  cure,  and  perfeft  the  reco- 
very, mud  be  beft  acquainted  with  the  na^- 
ture  and  caufe  of  the  difeafe  j  and  their  ac- 
counts are  the  only  fa£ts  of  this  kind, 
which  can  abfolutely  be  depended  upon  as 
genuin  and  true.  There  have  been  many 
pretended  demoniacs,  and  many  pretended 
exorcifts ;  perfons  who  have  been  inftruct- 
ed  to  counterfeit  the  moft  horrid  gefticula- 
tions  and  diftortions  of  body,  as  if  they 
were  feifed  and  agitated  by  devils,  and  others 
who  by  the  ufe  of  holy  water  and  the  mut- 
tering of  certain  prayers  have  reftored  and 
let  them  at  liberty.  But  counterfeits  are 
generally  formed  upon  truths;  and  there 
may  have  been  fome  real  pofieffions  in  for- 
mer times,  there  may  be  fuch  at  this  prefent 
time  -,  but  we  have  not  the  faculty  that  I 
fpeak  of,  difcerning  of  fpirits,  we  cannot 
caft  them  out,  and  confequently  cannot 
pronounce  with  certainty  what  are  demo- 
niacal pofTeffions,  and  what  are  not.  If 
there  be  no  fuch  pofTeffions  now  in  the 
world,  this  may  be  reckoned  among  the 
jnany  other  excellencies  and  advantages  of 

the 


on  the  DEMONIACS.     61 

the  Chriftian  religion,  that  it  hath  fo  curb- 
ed and  reftrained  the  powers  of  evil  fpirits. 
They  had  indeed  at  the  time  of  our  Savi- 
our's appearance  a  particular  reafon  for  ex- 
erting their  power  and  malice  in  oppofition 
to  the  firft  ereftion  and  eftablifhment  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  -,  and  they  might  be  per- 
mitted to  exert  them  to  the  utmoft,  in  or- 
der more  effeflually  to  difplay  the  fuperior 
power  and  goodnefs  of  him  whom  God  fent 
into  the  world,  to  render  their  defeat  more 
confpicuous,  and  to  gain  the  greater  credit 
to  him  and  his  difciples.  No  fooner  had 
Jefus  entered  upon  his  miniftry,  and  caft 
out  an  unclean  fpirit  in  the  fynagogue  at 
Capernaum,  than  the  people  (Matt.  I.  27.) 
were  all  amazed,  infomuch  that  they 
queftioned  among  themfelves,  faying, 
What  thing  is  this  ?  what  new  doflrin  is 
this  ?  for  with  authority  commandeth  he 
even  the  unclean  fpirits,  and  they  do 
obey  him."  Afterwards  when  he  had 
healed  a  dumb  man,  poffefled  with  a  devil, 
(Matt.  IX.  33.)  "  the  multitudes  marveled 
<c  faying,  It  was  never  fo  feen  in  Ifrael.,, 
Another  time  (Matt.  XII.  22,  23.)  there 

"  was 


62     A   DISSERTATION 

cc  was  brought  unto  him  one  poffeffed  with 
"  a  devil,  blind  and  dumb  -,  and  he  healed 
<c  him,  infomuch  that  the  blind  and  dumb 
"  both  Jpake  and  faw  :  And  all  the  people 
"  were  amazed  and  faid,  Is  not  this  the  fon 
<c  of  David  ?"  None  of  his  miracles  were  a 
ftronger  and  more  illuftrious  proof  of  his 
divine  million  -,  none  of  them  were  a  more 
immediate   conqueft  of   Satan,    or  tended 
more  to  the  fubverfion  of  his  kingdom : 
and  afcribing  this  cafting  out  of  devils  to 
the  power  of  the  devils,  was  <c  the  fin  never 
"  to  be  forgiven,  the  blafphemy  againft  the 
"  Holy  Ghoft."     (i  John  III.  8.)    "  For 
"  this  purpofe  the  Son  of  God  was  mani- 
"  felled  that  he  might  deftroy  the  works  of 
"  the  devil :"  and  this  manifeftation  could 
not  be  made  more  fignal  and  glorious  than 
by  thus   vifibly  and  publicly  cafting  out 
devils.     His  cafting  them  out  of  the  bodies 
was  a  proper  type  and  emblem  of  his  ex- 
pelling them  alio  from  the  fouls  of  men  :  it 
was  (as  I  may  apply  the  words)  an  outward 
and  vifible  fign  of  an  inward  and   fpiritual 
grace.     Nothing  could  more   experiment- 
ally convince  us,  that  "  greater  is  He  that 


«  is 


on  the  DEMONIACS.    63 

rc  is  in  us  than  he  that  is  in  the  world." 
Nothing  could  be  a  furer  pledge  and  earneft 
of  his  final  viftory  and  triumph  over  all 
the  powers  of  death  and  hell.  (1  Cor.  XV. 
57.)  "  Thanks  be  to  God  which  giveth 
"  us  the  vi&ory  through  our  Lord  Jefus 
"  Chrift." 


I      N      I      S. 


REMARKS 

U  P  O  N    A 

PAMPHLET, 

INTIT'L'D, 

-^Review  of  the  Controverfy 
about  the  Meaning  of  De* 
moniacSy  Sec. 


WHEREIN 


The    SERMON, 

Which  aflerteth  the  ufual  interpretation,  &c. 
is  vindicated  from  every  exception  of  the 
Reviewer, 


b  Y 

THOMAS  HUTCHINSON,  D.D. 

Of  Hart-Hall  in  Oxford, 

and  Prebendary   of  Chichejler. 


LONDON, 

Printed  for  W.Innys  and  R.Manby  at  the 
Weft  End  of  St.  Paul's,    mdccxxxix. 


(iii) 


PREFACE. 


N  thefe  Remarks  the  author  oftheRevkw 
is  patiently  follow 'd  thro'  every  fentence 
of  his  worky    which  relateth  to  the  Ser- 
mon.    Andy  fhoud  there  fometimes  appear  a 
jejunenefs  in  the  progrefsy  the  confederate  read- 
er will  be  pleased  to  impute  the  fault  to  the 
nature  of  the  Review.     "The  Remarks  defcend 
to  a  minute  examination  of  ity    (not  becaufe 
it  defervdfuch  attention,  but)  left  the  author 
might  fancy,  that  the  unanfwerd  parts  were 
really  unanjwerable.     And,    even  whiVfl  the  t 
weaknefs  of  certain  writers  is  expos  *d>    they 
will  be  revengdy    in  Jbme  meafure,    on  each 
adverfary,    by  infufmg  into  his  compofitions  a 
tincture  of  their  own  futility. 

But,  the  excellencies  of  our  author's  per- 
formance mufl  not  be  dijjembled.  The  judg- 
ment, then,  which  is  difplayd  in  the  conduct 
of  ity  is  confeffed  abundantly  fuffcient  to  fur- 
prize  ;  and  the  urbanity,  wherewith  it  isfea- 
foridy  equally  qualify  th  it  to  divert.  Thro- 
oat  the  whole  are  diffused  undoubted  evidences 
of  a  fngular  love  of  truth  :  and,  in  difcujfng 
the  references,    the  author    hath   uniformly 

A  2  main- 


iv  PREFACE. 

maintain  d  a  confiderable  figure,  by  prudently 
jiibjlituting  a  part  for  the  whole.  " 

The  author  Jeemeth  to  lay  much  Jlrefs  on 
the  authority  of  Mr.  Mede  —  Is  he,  on  other 
occafwns,  ufually  difpo.s  d  to  pay  deference  to 
authority'?  And,  can  he  be  ignorant,  that  the 
authority  of  many,  equal  at  leaf,  if  not  fu- 
perior,  to  Mr.  Mede,  in  learning  and  judg- 
ment, might  be  pro  due  d  againjl  his  opinio?!? 

Several  famous  men,  'tis  true,  befides  the 
learned  Mr.  Mede,  have  advancd  the  fame 
opinion.  And,  about  the  clofe  of  the  Sermon, 
it  is  fayd  —  "  If  he  (the  author  of  the  En- 
<c  quiry,  &c.)  did  not  know,  that  Pompona- 
c<  tius,  Vaninus,  Hobbs,  Spinoza  and  Bekker 
"  efpecially,  had  all  p.atronis'd  the  fame  opi- 
ic  nion ;  he  may,  perhaps,  when  he  cometh  to 
"  this  knowledg,  congratulate  himfelf  upon 
Si  the  lucky  coincidence  of  his  own  thoughts 
<c  with  the  thoughts  of  men,  dijlinguiffd  by 
"fngular  penetration.  If  he  was  not  a 
uJlr  anger  to  their  concurrence,  their  chara- 
"  tiers  might  have  jujiifyd  afufpicion,  at 
"  leap;,  of  the  doclrin,  and  occafond  a  more 
"  accurate  inquiry  into  the  foundation  of  it,  be- 
"fore  it  was  efpousd  and  publickly  revivd." 

With  this  rejlexicn  the  Reviewer  is  incensd: 
and  im?nediately  recurring  (agreeably  to  the 
fuggeftions  of  nature,  in  cafes  of  dijlrefsj  to 
his  chief  injlrumc?it  of  defence,  he  cryeth  out — 
"  *  It  was  impertinent  to  talk  in  that  maJiner 
"  in  a  Pulpit  —  "     //  ftill  feemeth  very  per- 

»  Review,  p.  64. 

tinent 


PREFACE.  v 

tinent  to  point  out  the  perfons,  who  joirid 
this  with  their  other  abufes  of  holy  Scripture ; 
and,  jrom  violating  ifs  language,  made  an 
eafy  tranfition  to  the  elufion  of  ifs  authority. 
"The  young  are  hereby  taught  the  fatal  rejl- 
lejhefs  of  error,  and  the  danger  of  ajfenting 
to  Jiich  comrnents,  in  regard  to  one  point,  as 
tend  to  fpread  ambiguity  thro  out  the  whole 
J acred  Text. 

We  are  not,  indeed,  ajfurd  that,  in  any 
future  inquiries,  the  fame  violent  method  of 
interpretation  will  be  apply* d  to  the  great  my~ 
Jleries  of  our  faith.  Tety  how  well  our  Au~ 
thcr  is  prepard  to  ufe  it,  at  leaf,  in  pervert- 
ing feme  import 'ant  injlruBions,  that  occur  in 
holy  Scripture  *,  may  be  eafily  collected  from 
his  harangue  2  againjl  the  perfuafon,  that 
"  poor  Men  (fo  pitifully  doth  he  talk)  may 
<c  be  artfully  fedue'd  from  the  Ways  of  Vir- 
"  tue  and  Religion  by  invifible,  fpiritual 
"  Enemies/' 

Shoud  any  readers  be  hereupon  difposd  to 
afk  —  To  what  purpofe,  then,  have  St.  Paul, 
St.  James  and  St.  Peter  deliver  d  the  direcli- 
ens,  which  are  extant  in  the  places  referrd 
to?  —  our  author  can  furnijh  them  with  an 
eafy  folution,  in  his  way,  by  acquainting  themy 
that  tho  $td£oh@",  in  a  certain  bock,  is  vul- 
garly fuppos' d  to  denote  an  evil,  fpiritual,  de- 
luding, powerful  Betg}  yet,  i?i  other  good 
writings,  (to  him  welt  known)   the  word  can 

»  See  Iph'.  iv.  27.  vi.  11.     James  iv.  7.     1  Vet.  v.  8. 
*  Review,  p.  26,  27. 

only 


vi  PREFACE. 

only  fignify,  in  the  utmoji  extent  of  it's  power, 
a  fly,  gloomy,  intriguing,  malicious  accufer 
of  his  brethren.  Thus  will  it  plainly  enough 
appear,  that  thofe  apojlles  may  be  fairly  un— 
derflood  only  to  have  given  cautions  againjl 
dark,  defigning  fellows,  — fuch  as,  in  their 
times,  infejled  the  Chrijlian  church ;  and  fuch v 
as  it  is  thought  not  to  be  intirely  free  from, 
in  the  prefent. 

Our  author  (in  the  common  Jlrain  of  ant i- 
fcripturijls)  *  talks  of  "  ridiculous  notions, 
blended  with  the  true  religion";    or  fuch,  as 
may  provoke  '*  "  high  ridicule."     This  fame 
tremendous  argument — "high  ridicule" — 
was  in  great  vogue  among  ft  fome  antient  un- 
believers :  and  the  exquifitejubtlety,  which  it 
Jheweth,    in   conjunction  with  its   aftonifhing 
jirength,  mnjl  be  fupposd  to  have  recommend- 
ed it  to  the  ufe  of  their  judicious  J'ucceffbrs, 
in  the  laudable  work  of  torturing  and  derid- 
ing the  Scriptures,      Neverthelefs,    each   re- 
viver of  this  old  device  may  be  contented  with 
an  old  admonition    (which  the  Reviewer  is 
left  to  find,  without  a  reference)  Evicts  — • 

But,  our  author  Jeemeth  to  give  kind  no- 
tice 3,  that  da?igerous  attacks  may  be  ex  peeled 
jrom  unbelievers,  "  who  have  Eyes  (as  be  fa* 
"  gacioujly  obferveth)    to  fee  our  Weaknefs, 
<(  and  Hands  ready  to  expofe  us**    How  weak 


1   Review,  p.  4. 

*  A  fort  of  cant-phrafe  i$  the  Enquiry  and  Review. 

J  Review,  p.  4. 

be 


PREFACE.  vii 

he  and  his  friends  are,  and  how  liable  to  be 
expos' d,  it  became  him  to  conffder,  before  he 
undertook  the  office  of  a  Reviewer.  But,  coiid 
he  prevail  with  the  infidels  (whofe  dreadful, 
well-known  eyes  a?id  hands  feem  to  have  made 
a  deep  impreffion  upon  him)  to  imploy  their 
eyes  in  reading  proper  bocks,  they  can  never, 
confifiently  with  any  degree  of  modefly,  imploy 
their  hands  in  committing  to  paper  fuch  crude, 
profane  reveries,  as  they  have  been  long  ac- 
cuffomd  to  obtrude  upon  the  publick.  How 
they  are  incourag  d  to  repeat  their  abufes  of 
the  prefs,  it  may  be  difficult  to  Jay  -,  unlefs  the 
irreligious  tenor  of  their  productions  may, 
amongjl  their  acquaintance,  be  thought  Suffi- 
cient attoneme?it  for  their  dulnefs ;  and  give 
them  an  air  of fignificancy,  w  hi  Iff  it  ingagcth 
fome  to  read,  and  fome  moreover  to  refute 
them  — fuch  to  read  them  with  delight,  as 
contemn  Revelation  —  a?idfuch  to  refute  them, 
as  regard  that  contempt  with  juff  concern. 

In  the  courfe  of  the  Remarks,  the  Inquirer. 
and  the  Reviewer  have  been  conffder  d,  as  the 
fame  individual.  Shoud  there  be  a  miffake 
herein,  and  ff:oud  each  be  to  the  other  only 
another  learned  and  ingenious  felf,  the  miff  ale 
will  be  acknowledge,  whenever  the  one  fhall 
think  fit  toftep  out  of  the  crowd  of  Phil  ale  ths, 
and  the  other  favour  us  with  more  clear  dif 
cover ies  of  himfelf  than  can  be  colle died  from 
the  numerous,  ambiguous  marks  of  his  ex- 
traordinary merit, 

REMARKS 


•     » 


ERRATA. 

P.  25.  1.  IO.   for  otX^cov  T.aMov. 

30.  1.  23.  after  Men,  add,  more  unworthy  cf  Chrtjltam, 


REMARKS 

U  P  O  N    A 

PAMPHLET, 

INTIT'L'D, 


^Review  of  the  Controversy 
about  the  Meaning  of  De- 
moniacs, Sec. 


THE  examination  of  the  Sermon, 
which  aflerteth  the  ufual  inter- 
pretlation>  &c.  is  thus  introdue'd  — . 
1  The  difference  betwixt  Mr.  Hutchinfon 
and  the  Enquirer  would  foon  be  at  an 
End,  had  he  produe'd  Authorities  an- 
tienter  than  the  New  Teftament  for  the  Ufe 
of  the  Word  loupoov  in  the  Senfe  he  under- 
ftands  it. "     Here  the  author  difcovereth  a 

*  Review,  />  16. 

B  fymptom, 


[  1  ] 

'fymptom,  that  may  feem  hopeful  enough,  at 
the  firft  view.  But  it,  alas !  (like  the  language, 
which  his  demoniacs  will  fometimes  utter) 
taketh  a  fudden  and  unpromifing  change. 
For,  thus  he  immediately  proceeds — 

"  But  with  all  the  Pomp  of  References  that 
"  his  Margins  are  ftufPd  with,  there  is  not  fo 
"  much  as  one  that  is  as  antient  as  the  New 
"  Teftament,  that  is  to  his  purpofe."1  Who 
wou'd  not  be  pleas'd  even  with  the  feverity  of 
a  fentence,  that  is  pronounc'd  with  fuch  de- 
cency and  elegance?  Yet,  what  expostulations 
might  have  been  expected  from  this  delicate 
writer,  had  thofe  offenfive  margins  appear'd 
without  references  ? 

It  cannot  be  fuppos'd,  indeed,  that  the  me- 
thod of  directing  the  reader  to  authorities, 
which  I  have  chofen  to  life,  fhou'd  be  ap- 
prov'd  by  any  modern  dealers  in  antifcriptural 
cavils.  Thefe  are  generally  contented  with 
repeating  fuch  citations,  as  they  find  already 
made :  and,  if  they  produce  the  name  only  of 
itn  author,  their  intimate  acquaintance  with 
him  mufT,  in  compliance  with  their  modeft 
expectations,  be  acknowledged.  Writers,  lefs 
adventurous,  will  not  refufe  the  Public  even 
the  lovver  inftances  of  their  diligence.  And, 
in  treating  fubjects,  where  authorities  are  re- 
quired, thofe  may  feem  to  confult  their  own 
reputation,  as  well  as  their  reader's  conveni- 
ence, rriof:  fuccefsfully,  who  draw  off  the  fen- 
timents  of  the  authors  cited,    with  fidelity ; 

■  Review,  ibid, 

reprefent 


[3  1 

reprefent  them  digefted  and  conne&ed,  with 
propriety  and  perfpicuity ;  and  then  refer,  with 
accuracy,  to  the  places,  wherein  they  occur. 
Recourfe  to  the  feveral  originals  is  hereby  fa- 
cilitated; fufpicions  of  unfair  practice  pre- 
vented; or,  at  leaft,  the  more  curious  reader 
is  inabled,  without  lofs  of  time,  to  remove 
the  fufpicions,  which  he  may  have  conceiv'd. 

This  digreffion  may,  perhaps,  be  wonder'd 
at —  It  is  chiefly  made  for  the  fake  of  the 
Reviewer-,  that  he  may  hereafter  learn  to  di- 
ftinguifh  between  pomp  and  propriety. 

II. 

What  ?  {hall  our  judg  of  pertinence  and 
good  writing  acknowledg  the  propriety  of  re- 
ferences, "  not  fo  much  as  one  of  which  is  to 
"  the  purpofe?  The  thing  required  (for  thus 
"  he  goes  on)  is  to  produce  an  inftance  of  the 
"  word  Saifjtoveg  fignifying  malevolent,  malefi- 
"  cent  Beings,  delighting  or  delighted  in  pro- 
"  moting  wickednefs  amongft  men."1 

Here  the  author  begins  to  difplay  his  dex- 
terity. In  the  Sermon  2,  Saipoves  are,  indeed, 
called  Beings  "  delighting,  or  feeming,  at  leaft, 
"  delighted,  in  the  indulgence,  &c"  Our 
author's  omiflion  of  the  qualifying  term  can- 
not be  look'd  upon  as  a  fault  of  the  prefs, 
It  is  omitted  a  fecond  time,  in  this  fame  page ; 
and  alfo  in  pages  19,  27,  36,  38  of  the  Re- 
view.    If  he  coud  not  diftinguifh  between  real 

1  Review,  p.  16.         :p.  10. 

B  2  and 


[4] 

and  feeming  delight,  his  difcernment  mufl  be 
limir'd;  if  he -_;;/.;'  ".::,  his  J: 

III. 

To  the  defcription  of  lalyuttn;  abovementi- 
orf  d  he  immediately  fubjoineth  this  piece  of 
i nflru ;:::.-.  —  viz.  "  For  I  enfe  cf  &ufu>zs 
"  are  cited  Plutarch,  r  7  .  JambHchus" ; 

apd  then  politely  adds  —  "  all  :::erff 

"but  toe  modern  by  much  for  the  thing  to 
"  be  prov'd.  x  His  own  experience  and 
ccr.  n,    undoubtedly,    drew  this  courtefy 

from  him  ;  s  peculiar  beauties  of  his 

le  afford  incootefb  roof  of  his  acquain- 
tance •  ::h  good  writers.  Well:  but  "  they 
"  (Plutarch^  Sic.  as  above)  are  too  modern  by 
<c  much  for  the  thing  :  d."     A  gene- 

is  the  author's  happy 
inftrument  of  refuting,  what  he  is  unwilling 
to  admit.     Eut,  before  the  teflimony  of  thofe, 

i  of  other  v  :on'd  alio  in  the 

Sermon)  who  nouriih'd  after  the  promulga- 
t::n  of  the  Gofpel,    be  refigned  to  his  arbi- 

ry  exception  againft  it,    the  reader  is  in- 
treated  to  he::  the  following  pleas  in  behalf 
:   validity  —  The  author  of  the  Review 
is  (it  cannot,  furely,   be  too  much  to  be  pre- 
fum'd)  fo  well  acquainted  with  thole   cc  eocd 
Titers,"        to  know,    that  th  ere  hea- 

He  pretends  not  to  deny,    that  they 
the    words   iufum  and  ccuulun,    in  the 

:e,    which  is  maintain'd    in    the  Sermon. 
•   Tic  not  denyc  th  he-,  that  after  the 

•  Kewicm    I    :6.  3  Review,  iHU. 


[  5   1 

"  New  Teftament  Times,  that  Word  (dettpw) 
"  was  us'd  in  an  ill  Senfe ;  and  the  modern 
"  Platoni/ls,  and  Others,  are  full  of  fuch  a 
"  Notion."  Whence,  then,  can  he  imagin 
they  deriv'd  this  ule  of  the  word  ?  Certain- 
ly, he  will  not  fay,  (tho'  hard  it  is  to  deter- 
min,  what  he  will  not  fay)  from  the  preach- 
ers of  the  Gofpel  —  Lucian,  Porphyry,  Juli- 
an and  Libanius  were  the  eminent  free-think- 
ers of  their  times;  and  claim'd,  without 
doubt,  the  title  of  fair  and  rational  inqui- 
rers, even  during  their  vehement  oppofition 
to  the  Gofpel.  To  the  credentials,  that  had 
been  produc'd  in  proof  of  its  divine  original, 
they  were  not  ftrangers.  *  Julian  exprefsly 
attributeth  to  cur  Savior  the  miraculous  fa  ft 
of  difpofieffing  evil  fpiritsj  and  Lucian  fup- 
pofeth  that  the  fame  fad:  was  commonly  ac- 
knowledged. *  Our  Savior  had  ailedged  it 
as  an  argument  of  His  divine  miffion.  To 
His  difciples  He  had  3  promis'd  ability  to  work 
the  fame  miracle,  in  His  name :  and  many 
of-  His  meffengers  +  reported  to  Him,  that 
"  even  the  devils  were  fubject  to  them,  thro' 
"  His  name."  Inftances  of  miraculous  pow- 
er, thus  exercis'd,  were  not  given  in  a  corner: 
nor  are  they  incidentally  or  ambiguoully  re- 
corded by  the  Evangelifts ;  but  propos'd  as 
evidences  of  a  divine  commiffion,  and  ex- 
prefs'd  in  terms,  which  (according  to  the  re- 
ceiv'd  rules  of  grammar  and  criticifm)    im- 

1  See  Serm.  p.  r.       *  Matt.  xii.  2  3.  and  eJcwherc.       3  Mark 
jvi.  17.  and  tub  where.      4  Luke  x,  17. 

port, 


in 

port,  that  the  perfons,    in  whofe  favour  that 
power  was  exerted,  had  been  poffefs'd  by  real, 
impure,    fpiritual  Beings.     When  great  ftrefs, 
then,  was  alfo,  in  fucceeding  ages  of  Chrifti- 
anity,   lay'd  on  the  fame  fact,    and  frequent 
appeals  made  to  it,  in  fupport  of  the  Chrifti- 
an  caufe ;  is  it  credible,  that  enemies  fo  watch- 
ful*  fagacious  and  virulent,    as  Lucian,    Por- 
phyry, Libanius  and  Julian  were,  would  have 
fail'd  to  ridicule  and  expofe  fuch  appeals,  had 
they  been  capable  of  fuppofing,    that  any  de- 
gree of  fiction  took  place  in  the  report  of  the 
fact  appeal'd  to,  and  that  it  was  founded  only 
upon,    and  adapted  to,    a  miftaken  perfuafion 
of  the  vulgar  ?     Is  it  not  much  more  credible, 
that  they  wou'd  have  triumph'd  in  the  de- 
tection of  the  error,    and  urg'd  the  detected 
collufion  of  Chriftians  in  their  pretences  to 
this  miracle,  as  an  argument  to  depretiate  the 
reji ;    which  were  reported,   by  the  fame  au- 
thors,   to  have  been  wrought  in  confirmation 
of  the  fame  doctrin  ?     From  this  defeat  of 
Chriftians    (had  fuch  a  defeat  been  pofllble) 
might  have  been  collected  a  plaufible  occafion, 
at  leaft,    of  fuggefting,    that  the  Evangelical 
relation  of  other  miracles,    was  not  to  be  in- 
terpreted according  to  the  ufual  acceptation  of 
words,    but  to  be  regarded  only  as  an  artful 
accommodation  of  language  to  the  groundlefs 
notions  of  the  unthinking  and  illiterate.     The 
abilities  of  the  authors  abovemention'd  were, 
unqueftionably,    equal  to  the  difcernment  of 
an  impofture  of  this  kind:    nor  can  it  be 
,  doubted, 


[7] 

doubted,  that  their  enmity  t6  Chriftianity 
wou'd  have  been  fufficient  incentive  to  re- 
proach (had  there  been  room  to  reproach)  the 
preachers  of  that  religion,  with  deluding  their 
hearers,  by  appeals  to  pretended  facts;  and 
with  abufing  their  credulity,  by  a  defign'd 
mifapplication  of  words. 

It  may  now,  'tis  hoped,  be  fafely  conclud- 
ed, that  the  teftimony  of  the  authors  (even  of 
yamblichus  too,  tho'  not  diftinguifh'd  by  any 
direct  cavils  againfl  Chriftianity)  referr'd  to  in 
the  Sermon,  flandeth  in  full  force,  and  fuffi- 
ciency  to  bear  the  ftrefs,  which  is  there  lay'd 
upon  it.  The  author  of  the  Review^  indeed, 
hath,  in  effect,  confefs'd  it  fubverfive  of  his 
fcheme;  and,  therefor,  thought  fit  to  inter- 
pofe  an  exception  to  it.  Yet,  had  thofe  very 
authors  afforded  no  teftimony,  favorable  to 
the  ufual  acceptation  of  the  words  difcufs'd, 
'tis  not  improbable  that  the  Reviewer  (for,  the 
perverfe  and  the  paradox  generally  prevail  to- 
gether) wou'd  have  call'd  for  their  authority, 
with  a  degree  of  earneftnefs,  equal  to  the 
contempt,  with  which  he  now  regards  it. 
Probable,  at  leaft,  it  is,  that  if  they  hadyi- 
vourd  his  caufe,  tho'  in  a  much  lower  de- 
gree, than  that,  wherein  they  oppofe  it,  he 
wou'd  not  only  have  applauded  them,  as 
"  good  writers ",  but  as  good  ivitneffes  too,  in 
the  prefent  debate. 

IV. 

His  next  fentence,  in  the  fame  page,  ap- 
peareth  thus  —  £<  But  when  the  word  ($atpw) 

"  was 


C8  ] 

"  was  never  us'd  for  malevolent  Beings,  'till 
"  fuch  a  Time  at  leaft  j  and  then  we  find  it  us'd 
cc  often  in  a  certain  Book,  and  no  Intimation 
"  is  given  of  its  fignifying  in  that  Book  male* 
<c  volent  Beings ,  delighting  in  promoting  Wick* 
<c  edaep;  what  Neceffity  is  there  in  that  Book 
"  fo  to  underftand  it  ? " 

Here  is  a  ftrange  mixture  of  error  and  con- 
fufion;  which  muft,  perhaps,  be  imputed  to 
the  Panic,  into  which  that  horrid  cc  pomp  of 
<c  references"  had  thrown  him.  In  fupport 
of  the  defcription  of  dctlpovsg,  in  the  *  Ser- 
mon, feveral  Pagan  authors  are  cited,  by  whofe 
united  teftimony  it  is,  in  every  part,  fupport- 
ed.  "  But,  fay'th  the  Reviewer,  "  when  the 
<c  Word  was  never  us'd  for  malevolent  Beings, 
<c  'till  fuch  a  Time  at  leaft ;  and  then  we  find 
<f  it  often  us'd  in  a  certain  Book,  &c"  What 
time  ?  —  the  New  Teftament  Time,  that  he 
talks  of  above  ?  —  And,  will  he  not,  then,  al- 
low that,  in  that  time,  a  more  full  difcovery 
of  the  fpiritual  world  was  made,  than  in  any 
period  antecedent  to  it?  A  more  clear  ac- 
count of  the  Beings,  call'd  Sut^ong  or  <L/^oW, 
may  juftly  be  efteem'd  a  beneficial  part  of  the 
difcovery ;  feeing,  their  malignity,  power  and 
fubtlety  being  made  known,  proper  caution 
againft  their  attempts  is  thereupon  excited, 
and  mankind  more  effectually  induc'd  to  re- 
gard the  creatures  with  abhorrence,  which  had 
fome  time  ufurp'd  the  honour  of  adoration, 
due  only  to  the  Creator.     Nor  fhou'd  it  be  any 

*  pag.  10, 

matter 


[9] 

matter  of  wonder,  if  they  were  more,fr^. 
quently  fpoken  of  in  that  time,  wherein  their 
nature  and  works  were  expofed  to  light ;  and 
a  divine  power  difplay'd  in  the  repreffion  of 
their  malicious  rage. 

But,  what  is  this  certain  book,  of  which 
he  talks  again  and  again,  in  the  fame  fentence  ? 
His  language  feems  to  intimate  fome  obfcure, 
contemptible  composition,  which  this  judg  of 
"  good  writing  "  difdains  to  name. 

V. 

But,  he  thus  proceeds  — <c  Yes,  but  Plato 
"  is  produc'd  as  making  the  moft  pernicious 
cC  Delufions   the    favourite    Employment   of 


tC   ScllfJLQVSS  I. 


This  report,  furely,  was  not  form'd,  to  fup- 
port  the  title,  which  he  aflumes,  and  to  rea- 
lize his  pretences  to  the  love  of  truth  I  The 
paffage  of  the  Sermon,  which  the  Reviewer 
reprefenteth,  in  his  way,  is  this  —  cc  When 
"  the  fame  authors  (authors  referr'd  to  in  the 
<c  Sermon)  make  the  moft.  pernicious  delufions 
<£  the  favourite  imployment  of  ctaipoveg:  when 
"  they,  *  &£*  Yet,  Plato  alone  is  named  by 
the  Reviewer,,  as  if  no  other  had  been  men- 
tion'd  with  him. 

This  piece  of  ingenuity  is  immediately  fol- 
low'd  by  a  moft  appoiite  and  rigorous  inter- 
rogatory —  "  Do's  Plato  ever  fay  fo,  direBly 

c<  and  in  Terms'?  "     In  order- to  anfwer  him, 

■ 

1  Review,  />.  1 6,  17.  2  P.  11. 

C  in 


[  I0 ) 

^n  iome  meafure,  according  to  his  wifdom, 
let  me  be  permitted  to  afk  —  Do  I  appeal  to 
Platoy  as  faying  fo,  direBly  and  in  terms  ? 
or,  have  I  lay'd  a  ftrefs  on  Plato's,  Jingle  au- 
thority ?  The  Reviewer  may  here  give  occa- 
fion  to  fufpect,  that  he  was  ferious,  and  di- 
rected by  the  fimphcity  of  his  heart,  when, 
he  talk'd  of  "  margins  fiufFd  with  the  pomp 
<c  of  references ; "  and  that,  during  his  di- 
flurbance  at  the  appearance,  he  fancy 'd  them 
defign'd  only  for  oftentation,  amufement,  or 
terror  to  elegant  men,  unaccuftom'd  to  fuch 
hideous  fights.  An  intelligent  reader  may  be 
inclin'd  to  think  them  intended  for  another 
ufe,  and  fuited  to  the  fubjecl  under  confide- 
ration.  Of  the  Beings  defcrib'd  in  the  Ser- 
mon, the  feveral  authors,  quoted  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  defcription,  had  only  irnperfefl 
notices.  It  was  neceflary,  then,  to  colleSl  their 
fentiments,  that  all  might  jointly  fupply  the 
light,  which  no  one  cou'd  fepar ate ly  fupply. 

Before  we  leave  that  acute  queflion  of  the 
Reviewer,  may  it  not  be  properly  inquir'd, 
why  the  teftimony  of  Plato  is  call'd  for  di- 
reBly  and  in  Terms?  Will  not  this  cautious 
writer  fubfcribe  his  aflent  to  any  propofition, 
the  truth  of  which  is  not  declar'd  direBly  and 
in  Terms  ?  What  refinements  might  be  ex- 
pected from  him,  fhould  he  undertake  to  com- 
ment upon  any  important  article  of  religion, 
received  in  our  church  ? 

VI.  But, 


[  v  3 

VI. 

But,  he  go'th  on  immediately  to  this  obfer- 
vation,  in  the  Sermon  x,  — <c  When  they  (the 
<c  philofophers  there  fpoken  of)  pronounce 
"  them  (Soiifjiovis)  the  inventors  and  incouragers 
iC  of  fuch  practices,  as  are  moft  injurious  both 
"  to  individuals  and  to  communities  of  men  j 
"  they  muft,  by  neceflary  confequence  from 
"  their  own  reafoning  —  be  prefum'd  to  look 
c<  upon  $ai(Jt,oves,  as  extremely  evil." 

The  Reviewer,  in  his  tranfcript  of  this 
paflage,  hath  quaintly  diftinguifh'd  —  pre- 
fum'd— by  Italic  characters.  Cou'd  the  au- 
thors, there  pointed  out,  have  furnifh'd  him 
with  any  colour  of  argument,  in  defence  of 
his  own  tenet;  their  fenfe  wou'd,  undoubt- 
edly, have  receive  a  better  air  from  his  pen ; 
and  a  demoitjlration,  in  his  behalf,  been  rais'd 
out  of  fuch  materials,  as  he  will  not,  at  pre- 
fent,  allow  fufficient  to  fupport  even  a  pre* 
fumption  againft  him. 

VII. 

He  afks  again,  *  "  Where  do's  Plato  pro- 
"  nounce  Demons  to  be  the  Inventors  and 
"  Incouragers  of  pernicious  Delufions  ? "  And 
then  he  adds  —  "  Mr.  H.  refers  to  Plato  in 
"  Plutarch,  T.  2.  p.  3  36.  Idem  in  Phcedro, 
11  p.  240.  Confer,  idem  de  Rep.  1.  2.  p.  364. 
41  and  378  —  381  — 2.    But  in  all  thefe Places 

*  p.  ii.       2  P.  17.      3  not  there,  but/>.  361. 

C  2  «  there 


[  *  ] 

C£  there  is  not  one  Word  about  Demons  en- 
"  couraging  pernicious  Delufions.  "     How  is 
this  prov'd?    Why,   as  ufual- — it  is  affirm* d. 
And,    were  the  moft  peremptory  conclufions 
the  moft  pertinent  too,    who  wou'd  venture 
to  gain  fay  him  ?     But,    his   hardieffe  having 
already  been  expos'd,  the  juftnefs  of  his  pre- 
fent  deeifion  may  reafonably  be  fufpected ;  at 
leaft,    'til  all  the  places  referr'd  to,    be  duly 
confider'd  and  compar'd.     In  the  firft,    Plato 
(according  to  x  Plutarctis  citation)    forms  a 
direcl  oppofition  between   the  characters  of 
Seo)  and  fraipoveg ;    to   the   former   attributing 
what  is  favorable  or  benign  and  Jingidarly  ex- 
cellent*,   to  the  latter,    the  contrary.     Plato, 
then,  herein  juftifyeth  fome  part  of  the  de- 
fcription  of  Salfioveg,    in  the  Sermon.     And, 
had  the  Reviewer  thought  fit  to  have  taken 
proper  notice  of  Xenocrates's  opinion,  which 
Plutarch  immediately  fubjoineth   to  that  of 
Plato,    the  fcholar  might  have  given  him  a 
clearer  idea  of  the  mailer's  fentiments,    and 
fupply'd  fome  other  diftinguifhihg  features, 
which  belong  to  the  Beings  there  fpoken  of. 
The  expediency  of  paying  attention  to  what 
was  added,  in  Plutarch,  to  Plato  §  words,  is 
plainly  fuggefted  in  the  very  next  fentence  of 
the  Sermon,    which  beginneth  thus  —  "  and 
"  Plutarch  fuppofeth,    that  feveral  inquifitive 
<c  heathens    (whom   he  citeth  as  confentient 
"  with  Plato  herein)   were  juflly  led  2,  &c." 

1   —  B-to7q  t»  St^ei  >£  GregA-tltx,  rci  $'  cLAltyuva  Tb'ruv  ^cupoaw 
micMw<n.  *  P.  II. 

The 


[   *3   ] 

The  Reviewer  might  hence  have  learn'd  to 
acknowledge,  that  I  have  not  appeaPd  to 
Plato  immediately,  in  the  firft  reference,  but 
to  Plutarch's  reprefentation  of  his  thoughts. 
And,  x  Plutarch  having  produc'd  him  as 
agreeing  with  feveral  other  philofophers  in  the 
notion  of  (paJuXoi  Saipovsg,  it  might  not  have 
mifbecame  a  Reviewer,  to  have  confider'd, 
in  this  part  of  his  Review,    what  thofe  other 

f'hilofophers  had  alio  fay'd  upon  the  Subject, 
n  Plutarch,  their  accounts  were  properly 
plac'd  together;  and,  thro'  the  affemblage, 
improve  the  light  and  ilrength  of  each  other. 
But,  our  author  having  judg'd  it  more  con- 
venient for  him  to  poftpone  the  evidences  of 
Empedocles  and  Xenocrates,  I  mail  follow  him 
in  his  own  way,  and  proceed  to 

VIII. 

The  next  reference,  made  immediately  to 
Plato,  in  Phcedro,  p.  240.  The  words  of  the 
place  declare  a  variety  of  evils,  with  mod  of 
which  an  immediate  or  prefent  pleafure  had 
been  intermingled  by  fome  luipw  2.  The 
pleafure  intermix'd  hath  the  appearance  of  an 
allurement  to  thofe  evils.  The  author,  there- 
for, of  it  (fome  Haipuv)  mayjuftly  be  call'd  the 
inventor  or  incourager,  at  leaft,  of  a  pernici- 
ous delufion  >  if,  thro'  his  propofal  of  a  pre- 
fent pleafure,    men  might  be  induc'd  to  in- 

*  As  cited  in  the  Sermon,  p   1 1 . 

1   Eft  j£  $*i  *)    «***  tta.ua.*   v.'KK'i  i\%   tfii^i   occiput  reus   •srAw- 

volve 


[  M  ] 

volve  themfelves  in  guilt.  According  to  the 
ufe  which  *  Clemens  Alexandrinus  hath  made 
of  this  paffage  of  Plato,  (and  this  philofo- 
pher  might  be,  perhaps,  as  well  underftood 
by  that  Father,  as  by  the  Reviewer)  the  Scu^ay, 
therein  fpoken  of,  was  either  }  &Qu\Xxfj8j/j@* 
<5W£cA©^,  or  fome  immediate  vaffal  and  agent 
of  that  &^%w  r  Saifjiov&v. 

IX. 

The  next  references  to  Plato  are  thus  pro- 
pos'd  —  "  Confer,  idem  de  Repub.  1. 2.  p.  364. 
"  &  P>  27%  —  381  —  2.  *"  Here  the  Re- 
viewer fhould  have  attended  to  the  manner •, 
in  which  thefe  references  are  made.  Plato  is 
not  therein  cited,  as  offering  direct,  indubi- 
table evidence,  in  regard  to  the  prefent  fub*- 
jecl:  of  debate ;  but,  a  collation  of  him  with 
the  other  authors,  referr'd  to  at  the  fame 
time,  is  recommended  to  the  reader.  And, 
with  what  pertinence  this  office  was  recom- 
mended, a  brief  furvey  of  the  paflages  will 
evince. 

In  the  firft,  which  occurreth  1.  2.  de  Repf 
p.  364.  the  dyig)  and  pd,v\m;  are  charg'd  with 
attempting  to  delude,  not  only  fome  few  in-? 
dividuals,  but  whole  ftates,  into  a  perfuafion, 
that  they  were  inabl'd  by  the  foot,  (whofe 
aid  they  pretended  to  ingage,  by  'maScot,  Bvcrlcu, 
tKciyuyou  Tivig)  to  clear  men  from  the  dange- 
rous coiifequences  of  any  wrongs,    whereof 

1  Strom. I.  5.  p.  701,  &fcq.  Edit.  Oxon, 
1  Serm.  p.  1 I.    _ 

they 


[  «.y 

they  had  been  guilty.  That  the  (paZxoi  or 
7rovv](}M  Scu'fjLdveg  might  incourage  their  votaries, 
to  make  an  attempt  of  this  pernicious  nature, 
1  Porphyry  and  2  Jamblichus  will  authorife 
us  to  maintain.  And  thofe  Beings,  as  the 
3  former  alfo  obferveth,  (ZxXoi?)  «va<  .9W*,  — 
and  according  to  the  latter  —  vttoz^ov^)  rrjv 
rav  Stuv  mapxa-iav.  It  may  ftill,  then,  feem 
probable,  that  by  Bto\  in  this  paflage  of 
Plato,  SotlfjLoveg  are  to  be  underftood;  efpeci- 
ally  feeing  this  ufe  of  Beet  is  fay'd  by  Proclus 
(no  incompetent  judg  of  Plato's  language)  to 
obtain  in  many  places  of  that  author. 

X. 

In  the  next  paflage,  extant  p.  378,  are  men- 
tion'd  the  extreme  injuftice,  unnatural  cruelty, 
and  difcord  amongft  the  Srm,  continu'd  either 
by  infidious  practices  or  by  open  violence. 
The  imputation,  indeed,  of  fuch  enormities 
■  to  the  S-zo)  is  there  condemn'd ;  as  capable  of 
producing  ill  impreflions  on  the  minds  of  the 
young  efpecially,  and  propagating  wrong  no- 
tions of  the  Beings,  commonly  diftinguifhM 
by  that  name.  But,  fuppofing  Sulpom  to  be 
here  intended  by  it,  the  tranfactions  will  be, 
in  fome  degree,  fui table  (as  thofe  were,  which 
the  former  paflage  records)  to  fuch  agents  -y 
and  the  narration  found  to  contain  fome  foot- 
fteps  of  truth.  Nor  is  this  fuppofition  ground- 
lefs.    Plutarch,  having  mention 'd  fads,  which 

«  de  abfl.  I,  2.  fiS.  41  &  fefy  *  ds  mjji.  Sett.  iv.  c.  7. 

i  loco  at, 

refemble 


[  It) 

refemble  thefe,  *  fay'th  that  they  were  mors 
properly  attributed  to  Sat^oyig,  than  either  to 
Stot3  or  to  uvd^co7roi :  and  citeth  Plato,  Pythago- 
ras, Xenocrates,  and  Chryjjppus,  as  concur- 
ring in  the  fame  opinion.  The  opinion  feemr- 
eth  to  have  been  founded  upon  a  jufl  perfua- 
fion,  that,  in  the  fads,  to  which  it  relateth, 
were  imply 'd  fuch  guilt  and  fuffering,  as 
cou'd  not  be  afcribed  to  Stoi:  and  fuch  pow- 
er, as  belongeth  not  to  human  nature.  Plato, 
then,  having  (according  to  Plutarch)  attri- 
buted the  like  fads  to  Socl^ong,  may,  not  im- 
probably, be  thought  to  have  intended  the 
fame  Beings,  in  thispaflage;  wThere  he  men- 
tions the  ftories,  concerning  the  various  dif- 
ienfions  and  wars  of  Sec),  and  pronounceth 
them  improperly  apply'd  to  the  Beings,  wrhich 
Bio)  was  fuppos'd  to  denote. 

XI. 

In  pages  38 1  —  2  of  Plato,  it  is  inquir'd, 
whether  the  3-sot  may,  in  fome  cafes,  be 
efteem'd  i^cwrcLito\\ig  Xj  yov\rdjov\ig  ?  And,  in  the 
anfwer,  {viz.  I  £  XI  £)  it  is  imply'd,  that  the 
ads,  fpecify'd  in  the  inquiry,  had  been,  or 
might,  without  abfurdity,  be  attributed  to 
them.  But  the  anfwer  implyeth  not  only, 
what  is. not  abfurd,  but  alfo  what  is  ftridly 
true,  provided  fclppm  be  here  likewife  com- 
prehended in  the  term  ,<W.  By  thofe  (accor- 
ding  to  Porphyry  2)     y    vs-do-a,  yoqjeia  cftlehetf) 

■  T.  2.  p.  360.  z  de  akft.  I.  z.feft.^i,  42.  compare 

Jamblich.  &  Libm.  as  cited  in  Serm.  p.  1 1 .  f 


[  wj 

tirhyottg  $  mda'w  <pcti]a<riag  xtoi,  k^  uTTAJrjircU- 
itcctvo)  %l&  t?  reyflzoyictg  —  to  $  ;J/ewd@*  t#to<c 
c«e«w.  But  the  ■  Reviewer  obferves,  that 
<c  P/tf/0  condemns  Homer,  and  other  Poets, 
iC  for  fuch  figments,  and  adds,  ndvT*j  dock 
<c  dtydjSig  to  iaifiivilv  ts  xai  to  9-&gv."  Elated 
with  this  fentence,  he  proceeds,  after  a  fhort 
intermiffion,  to  alk,  "  Is  it  not  a  very  ftrong 
"  argument  to  prove  that  Plato  thought  De- 
cc  mom  Encouragers  of  Frauds  and  Delufions, 
"  that  he  exprefsly  fays,  The  nature  of  Gods 
<c  and  Demons  is  altogether  free  from  Delu- 
"  Jions  ?  ,  ' 

The  fentence,  Tidnti  doa>  &c.  feemeth  to 
be  a  conclufion,  defign'd  to  rectify  miftakes, 
in  the  preceding  debate.  And,  as  no  exprefs 
mention  had  before  been  made  of  Salpoveg, 
or  the  (Jaipivtov  $@i)  it  appeareth,  that  they 
were  rightly  fuppos'd  to  be  comprehended  in 
the  term  3*o),  during  the  courfe  of  the  dii- 
pute ;  feeing  they  make  part  of  the  fubject,  in 
the  conclufion.  Well :  but  is  not  the  con- 
clufion directly  contrary  to  the  notion  of  <W- 
fjions,  maintain'd  in  the  Sermon  ?  No :  in  the 
Sermon  it  is  prov'd,  that  lulpmg  reprefentetli 
good,  as  well  as  evil  fpirits:  of  the  former 
this  conclufion  is  to  be  underfloodj  whil'ft 
the  latter  are,  'tis  probable,  meant  by  Sec)y 
where  it  is  intimated,  that  \hnrdvn  and  yoq- 
rda,  were  not  thought  inconfiftent  with  their 
nature. 

•  P.  i?/ 
D  XII.  But 


[  x8  ] 

XII. 

But,  after  ximtv,  ago,  d-tydjSis,  &c.  in  the 
1  Review,  the  next  fentence  we  read  is  this, 
—  "  Mr.  H.  was  fo  far  confcious  of  this,  that 
"  he  has  put  this  Note  immediately  after  the 
"  References  before  mention'd,  viz.  "  Where 
"  indeed,  he  (Plato)  ufeth  the  Word  Beo)-, 
cc  yet  (Saipmg,  'tis  probable,  are  to  be  un- 
"  derftood  by  it:  "  Why  fo?  For,  thus  Pro- 
clus  fays,  "  that  Plato,  in  many  places,  calls 
u  Demons,  Gods:  Ergo,  in  this  Place."  Thus 
can  the  Reviewer  rally  or  reafon,  you  fee,  with 
equal  felicity.  Confcious  of  this  —  what?  — 
ci  that  in  all  thefe  places,  (as  he  is  pleas'd  to 
"  fay)  there  is  not  one  Word  about  Demons 
<c  encouraging  pernicious  Delujions?"  Such  a 
confcioufnefs  might,  'tis  true,  refult  from  the 
perufal  of  thofe  places,  by  a  perfon  of  our 
Reviewer  s  fkill  and  penetration.  In  me,  who 
pretend  not  to  the  like  abilities,  they  pro- 
duc'd  a  different  perfuafion.  And,  not  the 
note  only,  whereof  the  Reviewer  fpeaks,  but 
each  reference  may  mew,  that  I  was  con- 
fcious of  what  I  had  read,  and  of  what  I 
wrote:  confcious,  that  I  had  not  attempted 
to  abufe  my  reader,  ~  by  diverting  his  atten- 
tion from  clear  to  contejlable  evidence,  —  that 
I  had  not  made  an  indifcriminate  claim  to 
Plato's  fuffrage ;  but  only  in  one  inftance  ap- 


1  P.  17-     Sec  Scrm.  p.  1 1. 

2  See  Review,  p.  1 6,  17    compared  with  Remark  V. 


peal'd 


[  *9  ] 

appeal'd  immediately  to  him;  in  another, 
upon  Plutarctis  report;  and,  in  regard  to  all 
the  other  references,  wherein  his  name  occurs, 
fuggefied  the  expediency  of  comparing  the 
tenor  of  his  language  with  that  of  Plutarch, 
of  Porphyry \  of  Jamblichus  and  of  Libanius^ 
all  cited  at  the  fame  time,  with  the  fame  de- 
iign.  I  was  alfo  confcious,  that  thefe  authors 
did  not  only  place  the  tenet,  in  fupport  of 
which  they  are  quoted,  above  all  danger  of 
juft  exception ;  but  that  they  might  likewife, 
upon  comparifon  with  the  three  laft  pafTages 
of  Plato,  afford  fome  ground  of  probability, 
that  thefe,  or  fome  of  thefe,  Prod  us  had  in 
view,  when  he  obferv'd,  that  Plato,  in  many. 
places,  apply'd  to  Salens  the  appellation  of 
Bsoi.  To  one  confcious  of  thefe  feveral  points, 
it  was  needlefs,  as  well  as  unbecoming  and 
abfurd,  firft  to  form  conjectural  premifes,  and 
then  prefs  an  illative  particle  to  introduce  a 
peremptory  conclufion. 

XIII. 

From  Plato  the  author  of  the  Review  1  ad- 
vanceth  to  E?npe docles ;    and  afketh,  "  How 

does  it  hence  appear  (from  Empedocles's 
c  verfes,  I  fuppofe)  that  Demons   were  con- 

ceiv'd  by  Empedocles  to  be  malevolent  Be- 
"  ings  delighting  or  delighted  (thus  is  he 
"  pleas'd  with  repeating  his  own  Abfurdity) 
"  in  promoting  wickednejs?  He  imagin'd,  in- 


IL 


<C 


1  Review,  p.  19.  and  agnin  p.  37. 

D  2  "  deed, 


[20] 

"  deed,  that  if  Demons  were  guilty  of  any 
u  crimes,  they  "were  punifh'd  by  Jtrange  re- 
"  v 'Jut ions  'till  they  were  purify  d;  and  then 
IC  they  were  rejlord  to  their  own  natural  Re- 
cc  gion  and  Order,  But  what  is  this  to  ma- 
tc  levolent,  maleficent  Beings,  promoting  Mi^ 
"fry  among  men  ?"  And  —  "  what  is  all 
«  this  to  evil  Demons  or  Devils  wand'ring 
<c  thro*  the  Air,  about  Sea  and  Land,  and 
<{  ftriving  with  Affiduity  and  Fiercenefs  to 
<c  delude  Men  into  Ruin,  and  actually  making 
(Cfme  of  the  Species  their  Prey? 

Here  the  Reviewer  wou'd  infinuate,  (ac- 
cording to  his  ufual  ingenuity)  that  the  de- 
fcription  of  Scjpoveg,  in  the  Sermon,  was 
founded  on  Empedoclesrs>  authority  alone:  and 
then  his  accumulated,  fevere  demands  prove, 
(as  clearly  as  any  reafonable  man  can  expect 
him  to  prove)  that  the  defcription  can  receive 
no  confirmation  from  the  verfes  of  that  phi- 
lofopher.  Yet,  concerning  their  import 
Plutarch  feemeth  to  have  entertain'd  a  diffe- 
rent opinion.  In  one  of  the  pages,  wherein 
1  he  hath  preferv'd  them,  an  exprefs  diftincli- 
on,  between  xw^1  anc^  (paJuXoi  Soupong,  had 
been  premis'd.  And,  after  Plato's,  Xeno- 
crates's  and  Hefiod's  accounts  of  thofe  Be* 
ings,  it  is  added,  EpTreSoKXfjg  3  £  $Ua$  pffir) 
die  ov on  rug  Sccifiovag  coy   i^^d^coart  ii  'ovfyfAftiXq- 

l  Vhitarch.  T»  2.  p.  361. 


[    M    1 

AWiyiov  fjfyi  yd%  <r<ps  ^'©-,  SV.  as  In  the  Ser- 
mon *  ?  Here  they  are  reprefented  as  rejected 
with  deteftation,  in  all  parts  of  the  vifible 
world  5  and  regarded  as  the  objects  of  uni- 
verfal  horror.  And,  will  not  this  reprefen- 
tation  contribute,  in  fome  degree,  to  evince 
their  malevolence  and  maleficence?  Ill-fated 
Beings,  furely,  if  every  where  treated  with 
extreme  abhorrence;  whilft  free  from  the 
guilt  of  all  7r^fjf/.fjL£^ifjLctja9  which  might  argue 
their  malignity  towards  man,  or  infolence  to- 
wards the  Deity  !  But,  the  Reviewer  (led 
by  his  exuberant  benevolence  to  perpetual  fo- 
licitude  about  their  welfare  and  credit)  2  tells 
you  from  Plutarch,  that  cc  when  Demons 
"  fimid,  they  underwent  fevere  Punifhments, 
"  tofs'd  from  the  Air  to  the  Sea,  from  Sea  to 
"  Earth,  from  Earth  to  the  Sun,  from  the  Sun 
"  to  the  Air,  till  being  thus  punifh'd  and 
"  purify'd,  they  again  obtain  their  natural 
"  Region  arid  Order/"  It  is  readily  allow'd, 
that  a  miftaken  notion,  concerning  the  dura- 
tion of  their  punilhment  and  final  allotment, 
might  eafily  be  entertain'd  by  Pagan  philofo- 
phers.  But,  befides  the  words,  wherein  the 
opinion,  about  their  reftoration  to  their  natural 
order,  is  exprefs'd,  thofe  alfo,  which  immedi- 
ately follow  in  Plutarch,  might  havedeferv'd 
the  confideration  of  the  Reviewer.  Thus  Plu- 
tarch then  proceeds  3 — Txtojv  3  ^  tcov  tomtom 
cLfcXtyoi  Xeyec&al  (poc<ri  <zz£<  Tu^^,   cog  Seiva,  (2 

1  P.  1 2,  and  about  the  clofe  of  this  remark. 

2  Review,  p.  37.  and  before,  in  p.  19,  J  P,  $61. 


L  2i  J 

\5Grc     @Gcvx  ft    over (Japuas    eipydcat9  ■    ii    Txrdv'Q, 

izrgcijfAocIa,  TcLoy^otc,)   cvtnXycri  kclkco'v    y/jv    oux  rt 

'&rci<rcLv  it  QdAaos'ctv,   ura,  Siicviv  ..eScomv  — ■  i.  e.  It 

M  fay'dy    that  there  are  relations  concerning 

Typhon,  which  bear  a  very  ?iear  refemblance 

to  thefe  and  the  like  (viz.  what  had  been  juft 

before  produc'd,  in  the  verfes  of  Empedocles) 

importing,  that  he,  thro'  envy  and  malignity y 

committed  horrible  crimes ;  and  that,  having 

cans' d  a  general  perturbation,  he  at  the  fame 

time  fill 'd  both  the  whole  earth  and  Jea  with 

calamities,     and   afterwards    was  punijh'd. 

Shou'd  the  Reviewer  be  here  tempted  (as  he 

is  accuflom'd)    fhrewdly  to  inquire,    "  How 

'c  does  it  hence  appear,    that  Demons  were 

}*  conceiv'd  by  Empedocles  to  be  malevolent, 

"  7naleficent  Beings,   delighting  in  promoting 

"  wickednefs,    or  in  promoting  Mifery  among 

"Men?  —  7     I  mull  take  leave  to  anfwer, 

that,    in  Plutarch's  opinion,    it  doth  hence 

appear,  that  Empedocles'*  defcription  import- 

eth  ilich  a  notion  of  them ;    feing  he  fay'th, 

in  the  paflage  already  cited,  that  between  this 

defcription,    and  the  relations  concerning  Ty- 

phon,  there  is  a  very  near  refemblance.   Well : 

but  what  are  the  reports  about  Typhon  to  the 

purpofe  ?    mull  harmlefs  Salmons  be  traduc'd, 

becaufe  that  monller  hath  met  with  his  de- 

ferved  character?     Here  I    mull  again  take 

leave  to  interpofe  the  judgment  of  Plutarch, 

in  order  to  ward    off  the  expollulations  of 

the  Reviewer;  and  to  produce  his  words1  — 


1  Refcrr'd  to  in  Remark  X. 


1  B«X/iW 


[ .« ] 

£gXr<oy  — J  el  rd  <zj&  7*v  Tv(p£vu  — -  IroQX /jSjja 
pyre  Slav  ,&ct9qpci]oL  pyre.  dv9^a7rcavt  d\X&  oca- 
pcvuv  fJLiydXoov ,  Sfjfcft  vopiifyv]zgy  dg  tL  W\diw 
^  YlvdayiyiG  Kj  -ztvox&Tqg  ilj  X^v(ri7T7rog,  itto- 
/bS/JOi  lug  'zsrctXut  SeoXoyxg,  Vppeofizvi^i^g  jj8i/j  dv- 
Ggu7rav  ytyovivat  teyxiri,  x,.  t.  A.  2  i.  e.  The 
opinion  of  thofe  defervetb  preference,  who, 
thinking  that  the  things,  recorded  of  Typhon, 
imply  fuch  paffions  and  incidents,  as  agree  not 
either  to  gods  or  men,  but  to  great  demons, 
as  Plato,  and  Pythagoras,  and  Xenocrates,  and 
Chryfippus  thought,  afenting  to  ant  tent  di- 
vines, fay  that  they  (demons)  are  more  power- 
ful than  men,  &c. 

What  the  things  were,  which  the  accounts 
of  Syphon  contained,  page  the  22d  will  (hew; 
and,  at  the  fame  time,  fo  far  confirm  what 
is  faid  of  Sai^ong  in  the  Sermon,  as  to  leave 
nothing  more  to  be  fupply'd,  than  what  may 
be  eafily  collected  from  other  authors,  quoted 
in  the  fame  place. 

Before  we  leave  the  verfes  of  Empedocles, 
it  may  be  obferv'd,  that  the  Reviewer  afFedts 

1  "Plutarch,  T.  2.  p.  360.  where  ihefe  words  immediate!/ 
follow  - '  '  >y  tuoXby  t»)  $tu>wj,<l  t  tpvaiv  \jZTe0&8MVlx$  »jj*^,  ti 
*jN  S«ov  OTA  dy.iysc,  bSt  ctxa&lov  tyJiAdu  ctXcc  x}  "^vxv^  $v<t4 
ju  crupec]®'  a*(&rlo'4   c*  0"m«hA*;e«?,      v,d(.viw  ISiypjapuo  ttj  >S7c-jtv   xj 

Tfa?  J  h-lw  imrot^rli,  Thefe  are  here  added  for  the  fake  of 
propofing  a  reformation  of  them.  In  Head  then,  of  —  cd&vicr4 
ci  o-wj—  it  might  be  better  to  read  —  aiS-ia-j  h  aiv —  In- 
Head  of  —  Giycfyjl/M  — to  read  —  ctx°f^V  —  Inftead  of  -4r 
iTnru&TV — to  lead — iKilflEQtVfa^  The  Reviewer,  perhaps, 
may  rind  the  pafTage  cited  by  an  antient  Chriflian  writer,  and 
then  pretend,  that  he  ther.ee  produe'd  t£c  true  reading  of  it. 

to 


[  *4] 

to  cite  them  (not  from  Plutarch,  p.  361, 
where  they  firft  occur,  but)  from  Plutarch^ 
p.  830.  And,  proving  that  he  now  had  pret- 
ty well  conquer'd  the  faftitium  or  fright, 
which  a  "  pomp  of  references'1  had  former- 
ly rais'd,  he  grow'th  familiar  with  them;  and 
bravely  thus  prefenteth  the  reader  with  the 
following  lines  *S 

Ai8e£/ov  ft\v  yd()  <r$i  fAv(&>  zrovlcvSt  Staxet  • 

Hovj@»  b*  %q  x^ovog  xSag  u7riiP[\}(Ti. '   yoci'x   0  ig 
>/ 
ewyetq 

HsAtg  cLx.d[jia,vi@* '   0  0   ouQep®*  e//.SaAe  otvxig 

AAA©^  <5°  e^  a  A  A*  $ex*lat  ?vy  exert  Si  weefleg. 

and  adds,  "  Thus  Plutarch  gives  us  thefe 
"  Lines  in  his  Treatife  De  vitando  are  alie- 
c<  no,  p.  830."  Do's  he  fo?  Alas!  thefe  fame 
references  have  drawn  a  fort  of  vengeance 
upon  our  author ;  and,  in  aggravation  of  it, 
have  made  his  own  "  eyes  and  hands  "  the 
inftruments  of  expoiing  the  raftinefs  of  his 
pretences  to  familiarity  with  them.  In  the 
830th  and  83  ift  pages  of  Plutarch,  the  lines 
above  cited,  appear  exactly  thus  — 

Al6i(/ov  p\v  ycLp  tr(pi  i*.iv@*  woflovSe  oiattet. 
Xlo9}@»    q    xficvog   xSctg  ccve7r]vcre '    ycuct,   &  1$ 

ewyctg 
HeAi*  ctKccpuv]©^,  oS*  uWep(^>  'tfj&ctte  Stvcug. 

Thus  ends  p%  830.  and  then  immediately,  in 
/>.  831.  follow,  «AAoy   9  i%  aAAtf  $i%Sj<u  twm- 

1  Review,  ^  37. 


[  M  ] 

<?rjs  rj  x*  t.  A.  in  Plutarch's  plain  profe.  A- 
bout  falfe  flops  and  falfe  accents  I  propofe 
no  qucilion.  But,  why  did  he  tell  his  reader, 
M  Thus  (or  as  he  hath  exhibited  them)  Plu- 
"  tarch  gives  us  thefe  Lines  in  his  Treatife" 
&c.  whereas,  in  Plutarch  we  read  —  Uci}^ 
3  amoves  Z$a,g  dniflwz  —  id  the  Reviewer's  co- 
py -  Tl6fl@4  $*  \q  -xfiovoq  xtiocg  a,7ri7f]vcre  —  iri 
Plutarch  —  aiS'sp®*  \\j&olM  diveug  —  is  fol- 
low 'd  by  —  aXXmv  $'  Wj  aXXa  Si^ejai  toxics  j) 
k.  t.  A.  in  the  Reviewers  copy —  by 

AAA^  $'  t£  cluXXx  Sixfoil  wyixo'i  'rj  vrdv}eg. 

If  it  can,  after  all,  be  fuppos'd,  that  he 
really  tranlcrib'd  thofe  verfes  from  p.  830  of 
Plutarch;  yet,  might  it  ftill  feem  ftrange, 
(cou'd  any  thing  be  ftrange,  in  the  conduct 
of  fuch  a  waiter)  that  the  claufe,  which  im- 
mediately precedeth  them,  fhou'd  be  pafs'd 
by,  without  the  notice  of  a  Reviewer,  There- 
in are  mention'd  ol  &ivjha,roi  tL  xyivoirtliig  e- 
jcetvoi  &  EfjnrefroKhittg  i'ccifjiovig.  The  epithets 
are  remarkable;  and  might  have  reminded 
our  author  of  paffages  in  a  certain  book,  re- 
lating to  certain  Beings,  vulgarly  call'd  fali'n 
angels.  Amongft  theie  muft  the  $aifjLoveg  and 
SoufiinoL  of  the  New  Teftamcnt  be  left,  in 
defiance  of  all  his  attempts  to  refcue  them. 
And,  whether  he  will  acknowledg  it  or  not, 
the  characters  of  malevolence  and  malejicence 
ftand  fix'd  indelibly  upon  the  Beings  fo  call'd, 
in  profane  as  well  as  facred  authors. 

E  XIV.  JE#- 


[  I*] 

XIV. 

Xenocrates  is  the  only  witnefs,  whofe  e- 
vidence  remaineth  undefended.  And  the  paf- 
fage,  in  which  it  is  exprefs'd,  is  thus  produc'd 
by  the  Reviewer  —  *  av^oTras  *di  Qcvd^eo7rcig9 
cu  x^e^0"1  ™i™s*  (viz.  writes  the  Reviewer) 
yjfizocdv  "^TnCp^docg  x,  tcov  ioqtgov  o<tcu  'nrXriyag  ti- 
vctg,  7j  KoireTxg,  fi\  vrj^stoig,  v\  ou/Ttprjpiag,  y  ai~ 
^oXoyictv  $XX<ri)>)  kcii  Tuffccivxcrai  *z?(2g$  %&\v  ccXXo 
X&qov  t()£7rovT).  The  reader  will  be  eafily  led, 
by  this  admirable  grammatical  ftru&ure  of 
the  words,  to  fufpect,  that  the  Reviewer  muft 
here  have  meddled  with  language,  of  which 
he  had  only  a  ilender  knowledg.  In  Plu- 
tarch 2  we  read  thus  —  O3  Suwp^tq*  k,  rm 
vifjiifitov  tag  a,7rc(p^y[oug  K  t£v  zopjuv  ccott  stXyi* 
ycig  Twcts,  v)  x,07rfl#g,  i)  vyj^eiccg,  $  Svo-Qyifjuocg.  rj 
dt%poXoyictv  s^xa-iv,  xrt  Beuiv  upoug  #ts  ocufuovcov 
ciZTcu  Tirpocr^zeiv  ^vj^av*  uTXa.  eivai  (pvcr&tg  cv  tca 
<5&{i'Xjj?lt,  peydxag  /$/)  Kj  lo^upjig,  cvsptTnsg  3  %. 
Q>tv()poo7rciqt  eel  %otiozo-i  rotg  ToixToig,  tl  tuFxccvuccu 
'srpog  ib\v  aXXo  xe^°v  T?i7r*ty,  Herein  are  re- 
counted feveral  hurtful,  infamous  practices, 
which  Xenocrates  judg'd  to  be  unfuitable  me- 
thods of  honouring  either  the  deities  or  good 
demons;  and  alfo  declar'd  to  be  the  delight 
of  thofe  vaft,  powerful,  malign  and  gloomy 
Beings,  (call'd  above  (pcwXoi  Suipovig)  which 
inhabit  the  air.  But,  the  Reviewer  thus 
gently  reprefenteth  the  fenfe  of  the  place  — 

»  Pvevicw,  p.  36.         *  De  If.  £c  Of.  />.  361. 

"  Xeno- 


[   *7   J 

"  *  Xenocr cites  indeed  talked  of  gloomy ,  morofe 
"  Demons  that  rejoice  in  fuch  days,  in  which 
"  Men  iiuote  their  Breafts,  mourned,  and 
"  fafted ;  and  if  they  have  but  thefe,  they 
"  turn  to  nothing  worfe!' —  have  but  thefe  — 
what  muft  become,  then,  of  <Wp?^*a*  and 
cu%ooKoyia?  why  were  they  fupprefs'd  in  the 
Reviewer  s  account  ?  The  phrafes  —  have 
but  thefe  —  and  —  nothing  worfe  —  he  hath 
diftinguifh'd  by  Italics;  as  if  he  thought  his 
demons  thereby  fufficiently  vindicated.  But, 
what  worfe  wou'd  the  Reviewer  have  ?  Is 
there  not  fufficient  moral  malignity  (as  he 
calls  it)  here  pointed  out,  when  the  tenor  of 
the  whole  paffage  is  confider'd,  and  compared 
with  another  of  the  fame  purport,  in  Vlu- 
tarch-,  referr'd  to  like  wife  in  the  Sermon? 
Surely,  even  the  Reviewer  muff,  upon  fe- 
cond  thoughts,  be  inclin'd  to  acknowledg, 
that  a  delight  in  receiving  fuch  tokens  of  ve- 
neration from  deluded  mortals,  as  confided  in 
wounding  their  bodies,  in  finiiter  and  ob- 
fcene  expreffions,  may  argue  a  difpofition  di- 
rectly contrary  to  (permit  me  thus  far  to  imi- 
tate, for  the  fake  of  oppofing,  him)  moral 
benignity.  He  ieemeth  conicious,  it  muft  be 
own'd,    that  this  fingle  teftimony  is  intirely 

1  Review,  f.  36,  37. 

2  De  def.  orac.  p.  417.  lo(>7u,<;  5  ■*£  $u2^«f,  ucaree  v^uiqeu  X?rc~ 
(pgjLoctq  t£  cx.v@(>w7ra.c3  cm  <£$  culiio'p.  y,JA  y^  %j<;.cdbra<TfAQt ,  w,rc-iou  re 
xj  X.07TET01,  zrohXjc^s  3  'srccXiv  au&orisfiytit*  ^£9;  lego~S,  (AX9*&  te 
icKKxt  ogAvipyjcu  £i\j,-cut %va  cud    HA'*?,   Siu)v     (dp    **9&i3    ^cu^jVcju 

(AvdiOC.  '    X.    T.  A. 

E  2  fuffi- 


[  *«.] 

fafficient  to  expofe  all  his  cavils:  and  fay'th, 
(in  defpair,    as  it  were,    of  bringing  off  his 
clients)  "  Take  this  Hypothefis  —  take  this, 
"  I  fay,  and  ftill,  I  afk,  what  Evidence  have 
"  you  for  morally  malignant  Beings  among 
"  the  antients  ? v     Then  he  immediately  and 
happily  thus  anfvvereth  himfelf,  "  Xenocrates, 
"  who  was  himfelf  a  dark,  gloomy  Fellow/' 
Such  is  the  confequence  of  fixing  a  bad  cha- 
racter on  our  author's  "  good  demons,  departed 
"  fouls,  vanities,  nothings  y\  —  the  true  En- 
glijh,    in  that  noble  Tbefaurus,  whereby  he 
is  govern 'd,    for  fralfjioveg  or  Sctifjiovia, !     Xeno- 
crates  was,  unqueftionably,    a  forry,  imper- 
tinent fellow — For,  who,  except  fuch  a  fel- 
low, wou'd  have  talk'd  in  that  manner  againft 
thofe  Beings,    before  he  knew,    what  pleas 
wou'd  be  offer'd  in  their  behalf,  by  their  ftre- 
nuous  patrons  in   fucceeding  ages?     And,  a 
dark  fellow  too  he  was,  —  'tis  plain  enough — 
his   language  was  Greek.     Befides,  Laertius 
fcems  to  be  call'd  upon  to  prove,  that  he  de- 
ferv'd  an  ill-name.     For,  thus  ends  the  Re- 
view, Erratum,  p.  37.  for  (rxvQpoTr&s,  Laertius 
read  (ncv9^7ros7  vicl.  Laertius.      Our  author 
muft  here  be  advis'd  to  confider  what  was 
fiy'd  above  1,    concerning   references  to  au- 
thors.    Exaclnefs   in  making  them  may  be 
reafonably  expe&ed   from  all   writers;    and, 
from  thole  of  his  own  clafs,  is  indifpenfably 
requir'd,    in  order  to  lefien,  in  fome  degree, 

»   Remark  I. 

the 


[>9] 

the  drudgery  of  purfuing  them.  He  had  in 
view,  it  may  be  fuppos'd,  Laert.  1.  4.  fegm.  6. 
where  Xenocrates  is  call'd  Qspvig  xa)  Q>cvS^i»7rog. 
What  conclusions  the  Reviewer  -will  allow  to 
be  drawn  from  the  countenance ',  it  may  not 
be  eafy  to  fay.  Yet,  the  gravity  and  aufterity, 
which  appear'd  in  Xenocrates^  can  hardly  be 
thought  fufficient  to  invalidate  his  authority ; 
efpecially,  when  the  excellent  character,  by 
which  he  is  diftinguifh'd  in  Laertius  *,  and 
other  authors,  (cited  by  the  commentators) 
fhall  have  been  duly  confider'd. 

XV. 

The  authorities  cited  in  the  Sermon,  in 
fupportofthe  ufual  interpretation  of  Scupw 
and  Suipoviov,  may  be  now  thought  abundantly 
vindicated  from  the  cavils  and  general  nega- 
tives of  the  Reviewer.  Yet  ftill  muft  not 
the  reader  be  deny'd  the  diverfion  of  behold- 
ing our  author  triumph,  as  it  were,  in  his 
own  defeat.  No  fooner  had  Xenocrates  been 
difmifs'd,  than  he  thus  courageoufly  proceed- 
ed 2 —  "  But  what  Evidence  is  there  for  even 
<c  fuch  a  Notion  ?  —  (as  that  philofopher  en- 
"  tertain'd  of  <W^oi/g?,  I  fuppofe,  he  means) 
"  In  the  firft  Place,  the  whole  Hypothefis  is 
"  mere  Fiction.  In  the  fecond  Place,  there 
"  was  no  Notion  of  fuch  malevolent  Beings  as 
"  delighted  in  promoting  wickednefs.  And 
"  thirdly,  not  a  word  of  their  porTeffing  Men, 

»  Loco  cit.  6c  fegm.  feq.         *  Review  p.  38. 

"  and 


[  3°  ] 

«  and  inflicting  Mifery  upon  them,  or  wan- 
"  dring  thro'  the  Air,  and  Earth  and  Sea,  for 
<c  any  fuch  Purpofe." 

See,  with  what  matchlefs  prowefs  do's  he 
furmount  all  difficulties,  and  lay  his  oppo- 
nents proftrate,  at  every  ftep  he  takes!  what 
wonderful  execution  may  be  done  with  a  ftile, 
directed  by  cc  eyes  and  hands ",  like  his  ?  And, 
who  will  dare  to  refift  any  arguments  of  this 
formidable  tenor  ?  For  my  part,  I  was  in- 
clin'd  to  be  thankful  to  him,  for  fufpending 
his  notice  of  me,  whil'ft  all  his  other  adver- 
faries  feel  the  heavy  effects  of  his  ability,  thro* 
a  courfe  of  many  pages  —  which  they,  per- 
haps, may  be  tempted  to  call  one  tedious  pa- 
renthefis. 

But,  'tis  vain  to  expect  any  lafting  fecuri- 
ty,  from  the  aflaults  of  fo  refolute  an  enemy, 
L  the  64th  page  he  returns  to  take  a  parting 
firoke:  and,  fenfible  wherein  his  main  flrength 
lyeth,  he  very  rhetorically  pronounceth  his 
adverfaries  guilty  of  making  "  fuch  reflexions 
C£  as  are  unworthy  of  Men,  and  moft  un- 
"  worthy  of  Preachers  of  the  Gofpel."  How 
doth  he  prove  his  charge  ?  with  much  eafe — 
he  boldly  pronounceth  it.  But,  hath  he  not 
confirm'd  it  by  adding,  that  the  "  Gofpel 
"  teacheth  a  Charity,  that  thinketh  no  Evil, 
Ci  and  hopeth  all  things.'''  A  flagrant  viola- 
tion of  that  charity,  undoubtedly,  which  the 
Gofpel  injoineth,  to  expofe  the  attempts, 
that  are  made  to  pervert  it's  language,  and 
fubjeel:  it  to  the  capricious  humour  of  every 

enemy 


enemy  to  its  purity!  But,  thus  antifcriptu- 
rifts,  not  contented  with  invading  hiftorical 
parts  of  the  facred  volume,  feem  refolv'd  to 
extend  their  violence  even  to  the  divine  rules 
of  practice,  by  crude,  perverfe  applications. 

Mr.  'Twe/Is's  Anfwer  to  the  Enquirer,  &c. 
and  the  EJfay  in  vindication  of  the  literal 
fenle  &c.  (which  I  have  read  with  pleafure) 
feem  no  otherwife  obnoxious  to  the  Re- 
viewer's calumny,  than  as  they  contain  con- 
futations of  his  tenet.  Of  the  reflexion,  in 
the  Sermon,  wherewith  he  is  offended,  e- 
nough  hath  been  fay'd  in  the  Preface.  His 
rage  is  now  kindl'd :  and,  as  it's  bounds  may 
not  be  eafily  fix'd,  forbearance,  in  this  cafe, 
becometh  charity  to  him.  I  wou'd  orly, 
therefor,  improve  the  charity,  with  an  ex- 
preflion  of  hope,  that  (fhou'd  his  bands  be 
again  imploy'd  upon  the  fubject)  he  may  be 
able  to  (hew  the  conqueft  of  his  tranfperts, 
by  publifhing,  inftead  of  a  j'econd  Review  of 
the  like  tenor,  a  retractation  of  the  Jirji. 


FINIS. 


DATE  DUE 


**^PMBMBi